• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Case of the Missing E3

BCR

Master Poster
BCR
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Messages
2,278
I wanted to run another 'bizarre' situation among JREF folks to answer a comment about me by Captain Swoop in another thread.

Captain_Swoop said:
Snerk? BCR is a self confessed 'truther' he just doesn't go for the insane ideas like no planes or DEW but he still thinks there is some hideden conspiracy to find if he keeps looking long enough. 9/11 has some bizarre ideas and beliefs.

You attack 9/11 because his beliefs and ideas seem so outlandish but not BCR because his ideas seem on the face of it more reasonable (although I am not sure what at base his ideas actualy are)
Click to expand...

My "ideas" are, "trust, but verify". Case in point a strange entry in the NEADS MCC-T log for the day of 9/11.

neads_mcc.jpg


Erik Larson and MikeW have both done a wonderful job of collecting the 911 Commission working files (NARA) and maintaining them online and this is just one document from that collection. In this particular 'real-time' event log we find the following:

1425 entry - B475 E-3 (word illegible) Sentry 40 SD 33 mode 3 7777
1430 entry - B475 E-3 diverted to Washington DC
1439 entry - B475 on station. Need tanker by 1830Z
(transcribed by the person who copied the log)​

Seems simple enough, but sources tell me that there were no E3's over DC that morning. Sure enough, a review of the 84 RADES radar data reveal no such diversion 'squawking' 7777. That is not unusual though, since sometimes things do change on the FAA side of things. However, exhaustive searches of the radar data reveal not even one possible candidate for this plane.

Corroboration of E3's (AWACS) being over DC on the morning seems to exist in the FAA ACI Watch log.

aci_e3.jpg


Of course there is no evidence on radar that I (or others) can find for this E3. Is it possible that the E3's are using some Romulan-style cloaking technology? Were they removed from the radar data for nefarious reasons? Or was NEADS and the CIA simply mistaken about E3's being over DC? Could they be referring to E4's instead of E3's (two of those were in the air, but not over DC).

Or is this the E3 the log is talking about?

The case of Lt. Kuczynsk

Just as Kuczynski and his crew were about to intercept United Airlines Flight 93 on Sept. 11, passengers on the hijacked plane apparently rushed the terrorists, and the airliner crashed southeast of Pittsburgh. From there, Kuczynski orbited an area near Washington, D.C., for the next 15 hours.
Click to expand...

Flight 93 Ordered Shot Down

So I could simply accept that there were no E3's over DC and that NEADS was simply guilty of making a stupid entry error. Or, I could rush to judgement and assert that the E3 was indeed Kuczynski's E3 and that some alien cloaking technology must have been in use (except he was told to squawk 7777) or that the record of the E3 has been 'sanitized' in the radar and other records.

I suspect the resolution is somewhere in between, because I don't think the Romulans had shared their cloaking tech with us just yet. None-the-less, Captain Swoop is right, "but he still thinks there is some hideden conspiracy to find if he keeps looking long enough". You betcha!
 
Last edited:
I haven't followed this at all, so forgive me if it's naive...

E-3's have an effective RADAR range on the order of 400 miles. Is it possible that being dispatched "to" Washington DC means putting it on station somewhere outside the scope of your search? It need not hover directly above the Washington Monument to be effective.
 
Now here is a 'possible' match with an E4 out of Wright Patterson AFB.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|142220.9|VIVI36 481|FSP 03F |O ENR | HVQ 28 EKN FFO./.HVQ342070 |
| | | | | VIVI36 342 14 250 120 LDN261052 ADW 6745 |
| | | | | 070 042 |
| | | | | H/E4/R 1416 | RQST RADAR DEP RQ |
| | | | | T495 G524 ST TO HOLD AT LDN261 |
| | | | | 03 03 052 FOR UNSPECIFIED |
| | | | | 481 01 EKN 205/003 EKN TIME |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vivi36.jpg


VIVA36 departs WP at ~1408 and arrives on 'cap' over the WV/Virginia border area at ~1430. He is squawking M3=6745 and M2=4311. A close match with the 'cap' time, but definitely not even close on the M3 code. His original flight plan was for ADW.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|140102.6|VIVI36 142|FSP 15F |O ENR | AIR 29 LDN FFO./.ROD197035 ADW* |
| | | | | VIVI36 191 14 250 310 6745 |
| | | | | 039 023 |
| | | | | H/E4/R 1419 |
| | | | | T495 G525 |
| | | | | 15 | REQUEST RADAR DEPA |
| | | | | 142 01 ESL 196/006 LDN RTURE |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So perhaps 'diverted' means he was reassigned to 'cap' instead of proceeding to ADW. But not really since his diversion was to DC, the destination he was already in route for.

So why would he be logged in as an E3 Sentry by NEADS?
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
I haven't followed this at all, so forgive me if it's naive...

E-3's have an effective RADAR range on the order of 400 miles. Is it possible that being dispatched "to" Washington DC means putting it on station somewhere outside the scope of your search? It need not hover directly above the Washington Monument to be effective.
Click to expand...

Nope, my search consisted of the entire NEADS coverage range which might apply to DC (such as my comment above).
 
Sabretooth said:
The FAA ACI Watch log says 2 AWACS (E-3's) and also 6 Falcons. Have you attempted to verify all 8 jets?
Click to expand...

That is by 1530 and it is like an freeway by that time over DC with F-15's, F-16's and tankers. Nothing I could pin down to an E3 though.

VENUS77 (E4B) circled south of DC until ~1430 at which time he made a beeline for Ouffit. That coincides with the arrival of VIVI36 into the area. So outside of fighter and tanker traffic, nothing that I can find matching an E3 arrival. Of course I only have ZDC flight plans through 1446 so after that it is like 'needle-in-the-haystack' time.

84 RADES
FAA documents

Anyone wanting to try their luck is of course welcome to.
 
Last edited:
What does it show other than there is some confusion over confusing events?

What exactly are you tryingto uncover?
You must have some overall theory as to what you think happened?

Who is lying and why?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What does it show other than there is some confusion over confusing events?

What exactly are you tryingto uncover?
You must have some overall theory as to what you think happened?

Who is lying and why?
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm just trying to find an E3 :D
 
You would have look for the AWACS for 200 miles.

Did you check the Warning areas off the coast?
 
BCR said:
Hey, I'm just trying to find an E3 :D
Click to expand...

I did 75% of my service time at the NATO E3-A compound in Geilenkirchen, Germany, so I am feeling with you here :D
Have you looked out to sea? Can you? When we monitored the no-fly-zone over Bosnia (that was 1993!), our AWACS' always circled over water. There were certainly mainly political reasons for this (with former Yugoslavia and neighbours being foreign territory) which do not apply to the US east coast, but maybe also technical (sea being a convenient flat slab) and operational (less traffic, no FAA to mess with?) ones.
 
beachnut said:
You would have look for the AWACS for 200 miles.

Did you check the Warning areas off the coast?
Click to expand...

And ...

Oystein said:
I did 75% of my service time at the NATO E3-A compound in Geilenkirchen, Germany, so I am feeling with you here :D
Have you looked out to sea? Can you? When we monitored the no-fly-zone over Bosnia (that was 1993!), our AWACS' always circled over water. There were certainly mainly political reasons for this (with former Yugoslavia and neighbours being foreign territory) which do not apply to the US east coast, but maybe also technical (sea being a convenient flat slab) and operational (less traffic, no FAA to mess with?) ones.
Click to expand...

Limited to around 100 to 150 miles off coast with the ARSR's. I would think they would want to stay close in to the coastline to maximize coverage since the hijacked flights were domestic. But Oystein would know better than I.
 
Let's take it easy on John here. He's found a discrepancy and is doing his best to work through it. If conspiracy peddling truthers would approach research with the honesty that John here has given in the past, then we likely would not be seeing the ridiculously self-contradictory crap out there that we've seen.

John's looking at an issue he's identified. Whether it turns out to be significant or not is a whole other matter; no offense to you, man, but to me, this reads as little more than human error in documentation that's minor enough to not have merited consideration for later correction by those involved. Regardless, it's his time, the data's public, and there's zero to be lost by going through it.

It's people crowdsourcing data and being dishonest about where it leads that bothers me. Hence my scathing criticism of things such as truthers' misuse of the RJ Lee reports, or the Astaneh-Asl discoveries. But John here does it the way I wish all the other truthers did: He's let the data lead him. Whether mistakes are made in that analysis or not I don't know. I haven't studied this topic to the degree that he has (and this reminds me, I haven't paid real attention to the other thread since Gumboot pointed out a discrepancy to John, so I don't know what the response was... time to go back and look). But I don't get the sense of him trying to shoehorn things around, like Steven Jones and his acolytes do with physical/chemical data. That's a case of being utterly dishonest about what's presented and what it means. That's not what I see here.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Let's take it easy on John here. He's found a discrepancy and is doing his best to work through it. If conspiracy peddling truthers would approach research with the honesty that John here has given in the past, then we likely would not be seeing the ridiculously self-contradictory crap out there that we've seen.

John's looking at an issue he's identified. Whether it turns out to be significant or not is a whole other matter; no offense to you, man, but to me, this reads as little more than human error in documentation that's minor enough to not have merited consideration for later correction by those involved. Regardless, it's his time, the data's public, and there's zero to be lost by going through it.

It's people crowdsourcing data and being dishonest about where it leads that bothers me. Hence my scathing criticism of things such as truthers' misuse of the RJ Lee reports, or the Astaneh-Asl discoveries. But John here does it the way I wish all the other truthers did: He's let the data lead him. Whether mistakes are made in that analysis or not I don't know. I haven't studied this topic to the degree that he has (and this reminds me, I haven't paid real attention to the other thread since Gumboot pointed out a discrepancy to John, so I don't know what the response was... time to go back and look). But I don't get the sense of him trying to shoehorn things around, like Steven Jones and his acolytes do with physical/chemical data. That's a case of being utterly dishonest about what's presented and what it means. That's not what I see here.
Click to expand...

Why thank you sir. No, I gave up on the other thread since it went rather hostile and when a thread does that it loses my attention span. As I said before, not much into the Mineta controversy. My assertions were accurate however, but as the thread demonstrates, others have their opinions about what it all means. Just like this thread will go I suppose.

For some, it will be a clerical error. For others, something much more sinister. I'm tracking this down for Mark Gaffney and I think you know where his spin will go. All I can say is ... can't find that darn E3, but it might well be because there was no E3 to start with. Just don't know why NEADS would log one and there not be one though. Could be the E4, but he was on a presidential support mission, that is why he replaced VENUS77. I have the audios from ZID on him and at first he wanted to go to NYC area to hang out but the FAA said no and would not let him take off. That may be why someone at NEADS told him to squawk 7777 and go anyways to break the 'log jam' with the FAA. But obviously that snafu was overcome somehow since he (VIVI36) did make it airborne. But just speculation on my part.
 
BCR said:
Nope, my search consisted of the entire NEADS coverage range which might apply to DC (such as my comment above).
Click to expand...

My knowledge of anything to do with flying is restricted to building A320 wing sets and jumping out of STOLS and Cessnas.

However, loony truthers have in the past made reference to military aircraft being involved in exercises on 911. Could this E3 be one of those?
 
Jackanory said:
My knowledge of anything to do with flying is restricted to building A320 wing sets and jumping out of STOLS and Cessnas.

However, loony truthers have in the past made reference to military aircraft being involved in exercises on 911. Could this E3 be one of those?
Click to expand...

I think they shut those down early on, but worth one of those guys who dug into the exercises in detail responding to. I am on an email discussion of those with several other JREF folks, but to be honest I never saw the exercises as impacting the NEADS response (other than in a positive way) so haven't been paying a lot of attention to that discussion.
 
It also says UAL 93 was downed by a bomb... CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!1!!11111!!!!
 
BCR said:
I1425 entry - B475 E-3 (word illegible) Sentry 40 SD 33 mode 3 7777
1430 entry - B475 E-3 diverted to Washington DC
1439 entry - B475 on station. Need tanker by 1830Z
(transcribed by the person who copied the log)
​
Seems simple enough, but sources tell me that there were no E3's over DC that morning.
Click to expand...
It doesn't say there was an E-3 over DC at 1430. It says an E-3 was diverted to DC at 1430.

Isn't it possible the E-3 took an hour or more to arrive over DC?
 
BCR said:
And ...

Limited to around 100 to 150 miles off coast with the ARSR's. I would think they would want to stay close in to the coastline to maximize coverage since the hijacked flights were domestic. But Oystein would know better than I.
Click to expand...

Good point, and no, I would not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom