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

[beachnut]

taught or told?

my final point is, imo there was more going on during the pentagon attack than what we are led to believe.

What specifically? The only thing going on was Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon. What more was there.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I second that, what 'more' was going on?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

taught or told?

my final point is, imo there was more going on during the pentagon attack than what we are led to believe.

And your point makes no sense, since there's no evidence that said that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

Do you really think a cruise missle would hit 5 light poles, hit & move a massive generator 3 feet, then impact reinforced concrete without a scratch or blow up when it hit the first light pole?

Let reality sink in, you know that would be impossible for a cruise missile to do.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If it was a cruise missile, what happened to the aircraft, it's passengers and crew?

 

[BCR]

maybe ya missed it when they issused heading 190 then 360..

Well, seeing as how I was the technical contributor to Mark Gaffney's book, The 911 Mystery Plane and have most likely studied the E4B's flight paths in more detail than anyone else around, I can safely say no I did not miss it. But what does that have to do with a "u-turn" and being sent to intercept AAL77? You are jumping from facts-on-record to speculation without anything to base it on.

probably, but i only know about these 2. who knows what they did earlier in the day??
sword31/word31
venus77

In other words, you really don't know anything about the E4B's. There was one additional E4B in play. I'm not going to spoil it for you, I'll let you do your own research. Hint: I've already posted remarks about it here at JREF in the past. So come back when you do have an understanding of the topic.

 

[BigAl]

taught or told?

my final point is, imo there was more going on during the pentagon attack than what we are led to believe.

Well. once you look at the massive amount of evidence that shows that Flight 77 was crashed into the Pentagon by some of the 19 Arab hijackers and acknowledge it as fact, maybe we'll be interested in hearing all about your beliefs.

 

[Cheap Shot]

one does not call a TSD track a target or bogie? the strangest thing to me is when the e4b actually did a U-turn around the plane that was later thought to be flight 77. it started to head south when 77 was about 20 miles out??? very very strange is ya ask me. they would rather send a prop powered plane to explore instead of a multi-millon dollar jet powered plane with all sorts of electronics!! something smells fishy...

The C-130 was in the air, fighters were not, the only aircraft available to see AAL77. Why wouldn't you attempt to send that aircraft and request them to try and keep contact with the aircraft. Smart move I'd say nothing fishy at all.

 

[Cheap Shot]

from what gumboot thinks, it was a tsd track. i believe cheapshot stated that the tsd is on a different machine. and cheapshot did not answer me (as far as i recall) about if one would call a tsd a "target" or "bogie". think about it, it would make strategic sense to make something look like it coming from this direction and really come from another direction!!"

Don't quite remember the question if I didn't respond I apologize, I usually try to answer all questions that have been sent to me. I would say no, as far as someone calling it by either of those names, but it would depend on who made the statement.

If you have the full question I'll do my best to answer it.

 

[fess]

If it was a cruise missile, what happened to the aircraft, it's passengers and crew?

Come on Captain, be fair, you know they don't like questions like that.

 

[Senenmut]

Well, seeing as how I was the technical contributor to Mark Gaffney's book, The 911 Mystery Plane and have most likely studied the E4B's flight paths in more detail than anyone else around, I can safely say no I did not miss it. But what does that have to do with a "u-turn" and being sent to intercept AAL77? You are jumping from facts-on-record to speculation without anything to base it on.

i didnt say anything about it doing a uturn to intercept. i do wonder why it didnt try since it is a flying pentagon / commad center. but what is interesting is when it was 25 miles out (from the pentagon), the e4b was about 18 miles away and started the uturn to the south. at about 0932 when 77 was directly north passing to the east did the e4b start the 360 turn to the north. so, this plane that had millions in communication equipment and who knows what else, just did a uturn and didnt think anything about that plane?? i wonder if a foia reqest could turn up anything?
from history commons-

They are capable of acting as alternative command posts for top government officials from where they can direct US forces, execute war orders and coordinate the actions of civil authorities in times of national emergency.

In other words, you really don't know anything about the E4B's. There was one additional E4B in play. I'm not going to spoil it for you, I'll let you do your own research. Hint: I've already posted remarks about it here at JREF in the past. So come back when you do have an understanding of the topic.

i bet you dont know what e4bs are capable either....its probably one of those classified things.

the only other one im aware of was sitting on a tarmack somewhere. but please tell if ya wanna!

 

[Senenmut]

The C-130 was in the air, fighters were not, the only aircraft available to see AAL77. Why wouldn't you attempt to send that aircraft and request them to try and keep contact with the aircraft. Smart move I'd say nothing fishy at all.

the e4b was 17-18 miles away heading straight for him and about 3-5 miles south of 77.

from what i remember, fighters got sent north because of the "phantom 11."
i read somewhere (mikew website) that dave conoles told you the info. from his hadwritten notes, i remember he also wrote "rebirth of 11." so maybe there is more to the story???? if ya keep tracing flight 11 path even after it crashed, it would be close to washington.

here is a good question for ya. since flight 11 crashed, what would the tsd display look like? would it just stop? would it abruptly turn in the direction of the airport where they were suppose to land. or, would it smoothly transition to where the plane was suppose to land? basically im wondering if the tsd track did smoothly angle towards washington?

 

[Senenmut]

there is an interesting quote in the pdf file i linked to mike.

it states:
"after the crash at the pentagon, commander ---- in the PEOC advised that fighter jets from langley were scrambling. he said the vice president had authorized them to engage ANY OTHER suspect aircraft.

it sounds like that before then, they didnt have the authorization to engage suspect aircraft. so maybe that e4b didnt have the authorization to enage?

 

[beachnut]

the e4b was 17-18 miles away heading straight for him and about 3-5 miles south of 77.

from what i remember, fighters got sent north because of the "phantom 11."
i read somewhere (mikew website) that dave conoles told you the info. from his hadwritten notes, i remember he also wrote "rebirth of 11." so maybe there is more to the story???? if ya keep tracing flight 11 path even after it crashed, it would be close to washington.

here is a good question for ya. since flight 11 crashed, what would the tsd display look like? would it just stop? would it abruptly turn in the direction of the airport where they were suppose to land. or, would it smoothly transition to where the plane was suppose to land? basically im wondering if the tsd track did smoothly angle towards washington?

The E4B was not heading straight for him, the E4B was too high and or it is not practical for the E4B, or it's mission to deviate to follow other traffic. If an E4 does follow traffic it would be from 1,000 feet above or below and a half mile or more behind; What is your point?

The RADAR track of every plane on 911 ends when the plane lands (bandit 17 turn stop squawking) or crashes. When Flight 11 hits the WTC, the RADAR track stops. Other systems are not RADAR, and you lack the knowledge to figure that out.


You realize flying is not like driving? Flying at 33,000 feet, traffic at 20,000 feet will never be straight ahead. Did you want the E4 to play chicken with flight 77? What was the altitude of the E4? 77? Who knew the unknown aircraft was Flight 77 when it impacted the Pentagon? (unknown is the clue)...

there is an interesting quote in the pdf file i linked to mike.

it states:
"after the crash at the pentagon, commander ---- in the PEOC advised that fighter jets from langley were scrambling. he said the vice president had authorized them to engage ANY OTHER suspect aircraft.

it sounds like that before then, they didnt have the authorization to engage suspect aircraft. so maybe that e4b didnt have the authorization to enage?

lol, an E4 has no weapons. You are clear to engage? What does he do? Ram him? Engage what? ATC asked the 130 to see where the idiot was going. They did not know it was 77, or it was a terrorist weapon. Your point is what?

There was no one to engage 77, no one knew it was 77, or what it was going to do. How do make up your delusions? Have you flown jets? Have you been in the military? What would an E4B do?

If a USAF pilot knew an aircraft intended harm on the United States why is he unable to take action? Did the passengers on Flight 93 ask permission, were they cleared to engage? NO, we have to be alert and take action when the occasion comes up! Not sit around spewing delusions on 911 for 8 years and failing to make rational point or take action.

 

[Senenmut]

Don't quite remember the question if I didn't respond I apologize, I usually try to answer all questions that have been sent to me. I would say no, as far as someone calling it by either of those names, but it would depend on who made the statement.

If you have the full question I'll do my best to answer it.

it was from a norman mineta interview. he stated:
"Well, Monty, where is this plane in relationship to the ground?" On radar it is hard to associate with a ground point, but they'd be able to tell you roughly the distance from wherever you are, but he couldn't tell you the speed or altitude, and then all of a sudden, as I was talking to him, he said, "Oh, I lost the bogie. Lost the target." I said, "Well, where is it?" He said, "Well, it's somewhere between Rosslyn and National Airport," and about that time someone broke into the conversation and said, "Mr. Secretary, we just had a confirmation from an Arlington County police officer saying that he saw an American Airlines plane go into the Pentagon."


from all the interviews, he speaks about a "target" or "bogie", not a tsd track. it would be hard to believe that monte belger was giving him info on a tsd machine instead of a radar station?

 

[BCR]

i didnt say anything about it doing a uturn to intercept. i do wonder why it didnt try since it is a flying pentagon / commad center. but what is interesting is when it was 25 miles out (from the pentagon), the e4b was about 18 miles away and started the uturn to the south. at about 0932 when 77 was directly north passing to the east did the e4b start the 360 turn to the north. so, this plane that had millions in communication equipment and who knows what else, just did a uturn and didnt think anything about that plane?? i wonder if a foia reqest could turn up anything?

Then I'm at a complete loss for what you are trying to say. The plane took off, followed it's flight plan and the directions of air traffic controllers (verified with audio) just like every other plane in the area until the Pentagon event (except AAL77 of course). Since the E4B did everything it was directed to do by controllers, that is somehow odd? Or are you saying that there was some kind of conspiracy going on with the Reagan controllers. I don't get it.

FOIA request for what? We have the radar, flight plans and ATC communications. Not sure what else you could ask for that is not classified.

 

[Reheat]

Or are you saying that there was some kind of conspiracy going on with the Reagan controllers. I don't get it.

Don't fret John, he doesn't get it either. Anyone who thinks a E4B (B-747) full of electronics and communications gear should have "engaged" an unknown target doesn't have a clue about the subject matter.

Apparently, anything he doesn't understand due to obtuse ignorance is "fishy". He's not worth the effect required to provide an intelligent answer.

 

[MikeW]

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:

Belger learned of the crash into the Pentagon shortly after it happened. He and Garvey got on the phone with Norm Mineta who decided to bring everything down (around 9:45) which was implemented.

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):

Belger does not believe he heard reports of an aircraft headed to Washington, DC. Further, he believes he was informed that AAL 77 [Pentagon, 0938] had crashed. At another point they believed there were five aircraft to be considered a serious threat.

Belger clearly recalled reports of a "high speed VFR" headed eastward, though Belger does not recall speaking with the Secretary about this. The aircraft was characterized as an unidentified primary track that air traffic had identified east of Dulles.

From Belger's perspective, he "obviously" knew there was a threat to DC when AAL 77 crashed into the Pentagon.
http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Team8_Box6_FAA_HQ_MonteBelger.pdf

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.

 

[beachnut]

Don't fret John, he doesn't get it either. Anyone who thinks a E4B (B-747) full of electronics and communications gear should have "engaged" an unknown target doesn't have a clue about the subject matter.

Apparently, anything he doesn't understand due to obtuse ignorance is "fishy". He's not worth the effect required to provide an intelligent answer.

Like most of 911 truth.

 

[Oystein]

there is an interesting quote in the pdf file i linked to mike.

it states:
"after the crash at the pentagon, commander ---- in the PEOC advised that fighter jets from langley were scrambling. he said the vice president had authorized them to engage ANY OTHER suspect aircraft.

it sounds like that before then, they didnt have the authorization to engage suspect aircraft. so maybe that e4b didnt have the authorization to enage?

No. And why should it?
A E4B is a plane. A metal tube with wings. Planes do not have authority to do anything. Only people do.

In peace time, no soldier in the USAF has authority to engage a civilial target inside the USA.
Do you agree that this is true?

Only the Commander in Chief can. Maybe. This can be argued actually, that's a difficult legal question.
And maybe his VP can if the CiC somehow is busy.

So aboard a E4B, there ist not a single person endowed with the authority to kill American civilians.
Do you agree that this is true?

So what is your beef?

 

[Senenmut]

The E4B was not heading straight for him, the E4B was too high and or it is not practical for the E4B, or it's mission to deviate to follow other traffic. If an E4 does follow traffic it would be from 1,000 feet above or below and a half mile or more behind; What is your point?

so what was that mission ya think? the e4b was 15,000ft and 77 was 7-8,000 i believe.

The RADAR track of every plane on 911 ends when the plane lands (bandit 17 turn stop squawking) or crashes. When Flight 11 hits the WTC, the RADAR track stops. Other systems are not RADAR, and you lack the knowledge to figure that out.

i was speaking of the tsd track.

You realize flying is not like driving? Flying at 33,000 feet, traffic at 20,000 feet will never be straight ahead. Did you want the E4 to play chicken with flight 77? What was the altitude of the E4? 77? Who knew the unknown aircraft was Flight 77 when it impacted the Pentagon? (unknown is the clue)...

exactly...unknown and both towers were burning from airplane crashes!!

lol, an E4 has no weapons. You are clear to engage? What does he do? Ram him? Engage what? ATC asked the 130 to see where the idiot was going. They did not know it was 77, or it was a terrorist weapon. Your point is what?

do you have all the specs of an e4b? and 2 towers were burning because 2 planes crashed into them....

There was no one to engage 77, no one knew it was 77, or what it was going to do. How do make up your delusions? Have you flown jets? Have you been in the military? What would an E4B do? [/qutoe]
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.