White Plane over White House minutes after Pentagon was hit was part of Global Guardian

[Andre II]

First of all check this out that the white plane over the White House has officially finally been acknowedged.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1806284

Now, read the following post 36 in the thread:
"Another part of the Global Guardian exercise put three military command aircraft packed with sophisticated communications equipment in the air.

The three E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes, nicknamed "Doomsday" planes during the Cold War, are based at Offutt.

The airplanes give top government officials alternative command posts from which to direct U.S. forces, execute war orders and coordinate actions by civil authorities in times of national emergency.

Aboard one of the three planes was the Federal Advisory Committee, whose chairman is retired Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft. The plane had been dispatched to bring committee members to Offutt to observe Global Guardian.

Military authorities canceled the exercise after the attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, but all three of the E-4Bs remained in the air."
(Omaha World, 2/27/02)

Now, check this out:
A plane being part of an exercise is by pure chance over the White House only minutes after the Pentagon was hit.


Continuing the article about Offutt:
"All eight giant video screens in the command center were loaded up with data, providing Mies the latest information on the unfolding drama as well as information on the status of America's strategic forces involved in the exercise."

Now, wow they should have had a heck of information. Maybe somebody should talk to NORAD about it...

And by pure chance also Mr. President arrived later that day (and Warren Buffett had his money raising event where high-ups from the WTC were)

[Bolo Boffin]

1. So?

Do you have a coherent picture of what happened that day yet, or are you just being "shocked, SHOCKED"?

[subsuelo]

19. Andre II doesn't have to explain anything

The U.S. military does.

[Andre II]

24. Exactly!

:applause: :applause: :applause:
and welcome!

[Bolo Boffin]

28. Explain what?

What sinister implication is Andre making? How does it connect to anything?

[hack89]

43. The beauty of being a truther

no answers just endless questions. So when the military blow Andre off, what's plan B? Besides actually formulating a theory and proving it with evidence?

[Andre II]

45. You stil don't get it

in a normal world where there is a book of law things are pretty simple:
If Peter Miller is convited of having murdered Thomas Rich it suffice to show that the presented evidence are lies or full of contradiction to have a second trial. The defence of Peter Miller only has to show that evidence are lies and full of contradiction. They aren't obliged to prove who murdered Thomas Rich in order to prove the innocence of Peter Miller.
Apparently you don't care for contradictions and ies in the official presentaion of 911.
Sorry, I do are.

[hack89]

46. But you don't care enough to build a case

and take to the American public. You say that there are contradictions and lies but are completely unable to say why they are significant. Do they completely undermine the official story or not? And if the evidence is strong enough to undermine the official story, why is it not strong enough to at least suggest what really happened? Your inability to even suggest a substitute narrative leads me to believe that your nit picks are insignificant.

[Andre II]

52. Unable to say why lies are signigficant

Wow, I love your logic and hope you'll never work as a judge.
The prosecutor has to prove who killed. Sorry, that's the obligation of the prosecution otherwise no judgement due to lack of evidence.
That's the rule of law.
If there are lies under oath (and as you know there have been many) than this is criminal. But nobody was held acountable.
Do you care that people lied under oath?
O don't you bother?

[subsuelo]

2. here is a noteworthy excerpt

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton told CNN he was aware of the incident and that it had simply never seemed important enough to make it into the commission's report.

How can anyone with any interest in finding out the truth of what happened on Sept 11th - whether you believe unofficial CT or not - regard this statement as remotely acceptable? The official commission knew about that plane, the co-chair admits they disregarded it, and somehow, that's acceptable?

No, Mr. Hamilton, that is not acceptable. Americans rightly want to know what happened. If there is some reasonable explanation, then provide it. Otherwise, don't play Americans for stupid as usual and just write this thing off as unimportant.

What was the plane doing there flying over Wash DC around the time of the attack on the Pentagon? What was it's purpose for being there? Who ordered the plane to fly? When were plans made for it to take that course over DC?

As Atman succinctly asked in the other thread, "They had time to crank up the Doomsday Plane, but couldn't scramble fighters?"

More unanswered questions. More unacceptable answers. Typical of 9/11 official explanations.

[CJCRANE]

5. Also why did B*sh & Rumsfeld

sit around doing nothing when obviously someone somewhere thought it was a doomsday scenario?

[subsuelo]

18. Perhaps more suspiciously

Why did secret service allow Bush to sit around doing nothing --in a completely defenseless school building, knowing the nation was under attack with a (supposedly) unknown number of hijacked airlines flying about the East Coast?

It's their job to protect the president! That's it! Keep the president from harm. What were they doing? I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation outside unofficial conspiracy theory. The most reasonable answer is that some stand-down order was given at some point by someone. By who? We'll likely never know now. Why? When was a stand down order given? Did 911 commission think to investigate further into any of this perfectly reasonable line of questioning? No, they didn't. They just let it slide. Total unacceptable, IMO.

[hack89]

8. It is hard to imagine anything more secret

then US nuclear war fighting plans and continuity of government plans. The goal of any military attack on the US would be to decapitate our government - how we do nuclear command and control is probably our nation's most important secret. There was no way any of this would be discussed in public.

[Andre II]

22. So you believe that Global Guardian was still in full swing shortly before 10 am?

If GlobalGuardian had been stopped before then all the details about the stay of this plane certainly don't fal into the category of state secrets surrounding fighting an atomic war.

[hack89]

29. No - real world continuity of government operations

were in full swing.

[lovuian]

20. it doesn't make sense

does it This needs to be explained and yet 911 report doesn't mention the plane in their report

[hack89]

21. The exercise involved high level

government and military officials. Why is it hard to believe that the air force flew a E4B to DC, picked them up and flew in the local area while they conducted the exercise?

[Andre II]

23. Do you think that Global Guardian was still in full swing shortly before 10 am?

If it was called off before then your explanation is baseless.
Either Globa Guardian was still underway then I'd like to know why Mies didn't call it off?
If it was called off before then what the heck was the plane doing over the White House?

[hack89]

30. No - real world continuity of government operations

were in full swing.

[Andre II]

38. Right

So all the necessary secrecy surrounding an exercise of STATCOM doesn't apply to the question what this plane did over the White House. But still we get only silence.
So, Hack, pray tell:
How come Offutt managed to call off Global Guardian and apparently send the white plane but NORAD needs much longer to get any F-15 up over Washington?

[hack89]

41. Lets cut to the chase ..

can you just explain why this is significant? If you were to advance a theory on the role the E-4B played on 911 we could actually discuss something meaningful instead of playing 20 questions.

[Andre II]

44. It's a simple question no need for any theory

Why were they much faster to send up a Doomsday plane but at the same time sending up air fighters took them muc longer?
If you don't see that this question is relevant that's your problem.
If somebody decided the situation was so urgent that one needed to send up the Doomsday plane on alert but at the same time one doesn't give a holy f*** to send up anything whatsoever to defend Washingtoin DC this deserves to be answered. The surprisingly quick reaction for the Doomsday makes the amazing slowness of NORAD even less believable.

[hack89]

47. The plane was already airborne

and most likely flying in the local area. From your OP:

Another part of the Global Guardian exercise put three military command aircraft packed with sophisticated communications equipment in the air.

If I understand your underlying premise, the plotters used these aircraft and the entire US nuclear command and control system to coordinate 911 in real time. If that is not your premise, what is the significance of these aircraft? If they played a role in the attacks, why weren't the plotters smart enough to keep them well out of sight?

This just asking questions business is BS - why don't you have the courage of your convictions to at least venture a guess what happened? Is the evidence that weak?

[ma2007]

48. Am I right that you try to produce conspiracy theorists ?

In my view it is a very usefull way to get out truth when we ask questions and display facts. So that everybody can add facts and may be produce answers.
I.e.: what is your perseption of four e-planes in the air when four bad planes were in the air too. And the ec-130 crossing their pathes.
You see if their are no hijackers available there must have been somebody to steer the bad planes. Who could possibly be able to do that ? Any idea ?

[hack89]

49. It was not an EC-130

there were no "bad planes" to steer. There were hijackers. Any more questions?

[ma2007]

50. Sorry: eyewitnes confirmed ec-130, experst know because of the huge generators

[hack89]

51. No they did not.

unless you can provide a link.

[Andre II]

53. The plane just took off

“But the base went into higher gear when the Pentagon became the next target. A hijacked airliner plowed into one section of the five-sided building in Washington, D.C., at 9:43 a.m.
Minutes later, an E-4B National Airborne Operations Center - a white 747 Jumbo Jet often confused with Air Force One - took off from Wright-Pat for an undisclosed destination. It returned later in the day. Wright-Pat is one of a few designated bases for the flying command center.”
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0F51F6B2066D13A1&p_docnum=1


And why again do you put words in my mouth.
The question is crystal clear:
Why was the order that the Doomsday take off more important / had a higher priority / than to get CAP over Washington DC?

[hack89]

55. There were three E-4Bs in the air

how do you know that the one from Wright-Pat was the one over the white house?

And why can't the Air Force do two things at once? Perhaps the E-4B was at a higher state of readiness due to the exercise. Lets not lose track of the fact that there were only 14 fighters in the entire US that could be scrambled at short notice.

[hack89]

3. So if I understand correctly...

it was not a small group of plotters that pulled off 911 but the entire US political and military command structure? How many thousands of people would that be? And not a single one felt obligated to say any thing? OK.

[RedSock]

4. you are smarter than that, hack

So if I understand correctly ... it was not a small group of plotters that pulled off 911 but the entire US political and military command structure?

Hack, you are smarter than that. No one is claiming that, it's a strawman. Those are not the only two options -- and you know it.

But, as Daniel Ellsberg has written:

It is a commonplace that "you can't keep secrets in Washington" or "in a democracy," that "no matter how sensitive the secret, you're likely to read it the next day in the New York Times." These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn't in a fully totalitarian society. ... But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.

From Secrets (my emphasis)

[hack89]

6. So when is the truth community going to stop "just asking questions" and ..

actually propose a plausible theory that encompasses all the anomalies they have identified? Or are you another one just asking for a "real" investigation - and investigation you know will never happen?

[frylock]

11. what's your motivation for being here?

[hack89]

14. To ask and answer questions. nt

[frylock]

25. so then why not answer andre's question?

[hack89]

31. There is no question in the OP. nt

[frylock]

39. see 22 and 23..

take your time formulating an answer.

[hack89]

42. See 29 and 30. nt

[LARED]

13. I agree that the government can indeed keep

secrets. There is plenty of evidence of secret programs that were virtually unknown for decades we now know about because the information has been released. All of these large scale programs were able to remain relatively secret because the people involved were self-motivated to keep the secret. Because they believed it was in the interest of the nation to keep theirs secrets. (and many signed agreements to keep it secret)

LIHOP and MIHOP fail miserably by these measures. The scope and scale of a MIHOP or LIHOP scenario would require many, many people to have taken a part in the conspiracy, knowingly and unknowningly. If 9/11 was a con, many of the people involved would be OUTRAGED that they were suckered into playing a role in this crime and would have come forward.

So far no one has.

[mhatrw]

32. So why didn't anyone come forward about Operation Northwoods?

Who came forward about the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

Who came forward to expose Iran Contra or Arms for Hostages?

Who came forward to expose extermination of millions of Jews to the German public during WWII?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

7. Lets think for a second ..

a major exercise involving high level government and military officials. Where do high level government and military officials live? Is it unreasonable to assume that flew to the DC area to pick them up and flew in the local airspace?

[HamdenRice]

9. Interesting post! Here's a tidbit about airforce presence in NYC before attacks on 9/11

"Jersey Girl" Kristen Breitweiser made a statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002 which concluded with a number of unanswered questions. I assumed she never pursued this particular question for some reason, but given your new information, it would be interesting to follow up on it. As far as I know, this is the only time she asked this question:

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/intelligcomm/breitweiser.pdf

"Were F-16's and Stealth bombers seen and tracked on radar screens at approximately 8:05am on the morning of September 11th in the vicinity of the New York metropolitan area?"

[hack89]

10. What is the basis for her question?

it is the first time it has ever been mentioned here. Sounds like she was just passing on a rumor.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

15. So what?

Until the truth community puts forward a plausible scenario how are we to judge whether this is significant or not. What possible role could the E4B play?

[frylock]

26. by all means, put the cart before the horse

[hack89]

27. OK n/t

[mhatrw]

33. The E4-B

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=99

The E-4B serves as the National Airborne Operations Center for the president, secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In case of national emergency or destruction of ground command control centers, the aircraft provides a highly survivable, command, control and communications center to direct U.S. forces, execute emergency war orders and coordinate actions by civil authorities.

Air Combat Command is the Air Force single-resource manager for the E-4B, and provides aircrew, maintenance, security and communications support. E-4B operations are directed by the JCS and executed through U.S. Strategic Command. USSTRATCOM also provides personnel for the airborne operations center.

The E-4B, a militarized version of the Boeing 747-200, is a four-engine, swept-wing, long-range, high-altitude airplane capable of being refueled in flight. Its larger size provides approximately triple the floor space of the earlier EC-135 command post.

The main deck is divided into six functional areas: a command work area, conference room, briefing room, an operations team work area, and communications and rest areas. An E-4B crew may include up to 112 people, including a joint-service operations team, an ACC flight crew, a maintenance and security component, a communications team and selected augmentees.

[hack89]

35. So how does this fit into a 911 CT?

What was the role of the aircraft in pulling off 911?

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Come on, dude! They were threatening castration!

Am I wrong? Am I wrong?

[Andre II]

37. I love your sense of humour!

But maybe you come up with an answer concercing the contradictions of the passenger's attack time in the other thread or didn't you manage to click on the zip file of the Moussaoui trial?

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Thank you!

I've ordered the Among The Heroes book and I'll be checking it out myself. Consider that answer on hold.

[wildbilln864]

56. for how many years? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

57. This was answered in another thread.

Andre didn't accept the answer, of course. Life continues.

[wildbilln864]

58. perhaps your argument was unpersuasive?

can you link to the thread where it was answered?

[Bolo Boffin]

59. You could as soon wring blood from a stone

as persuade a 9/11 CT advocate of the error of their ways.

Why should I link? You'll bump it up in one of your kickatude moods sooner or later.

[wildbilln864]

60. if you had any persuasive evidence....

I'm sure many could be converted. But there's the rub my friend.

[Andre II]

61. This was answered in another thread.

"Andre didn't accept the answer, of course."

Really, I would have laughed to accept an answer if at least you'd tried to give an answer. But you didn't even try...
:spank: :spank:
Or did I miss something?
Maybe here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=225759&mesg_id=226167
or here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=225759&mesg_id=226172
or here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=225759&mesg_id=226174
or here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=225759&mesg_id=226177
or here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=225759&mesg_id=226179
or here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=225759&mesg_id=226181
or here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=225759&mesg_id=226189
or here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=225759&mesg_id=226220

or maybe NOWHERE!
Let's face it bolo. Euther you didn't even read the OP or you are unable of answering it.
And, well, that might be the reason why you can't link tp your highly acclaimed answer...!

[Bolo Boffin]

62. A complete factual inaccuracy.

Enjoy your illusions.

[wildbilln864]

63. it's a simple matter....

all you have to do is link or repost the answer you claim you posted elsewhere if it really existed. :shrug: After all, you'll spend at least that much time writing snide little tidbits like you just did in this thread.

[Bolo Boffin]

64. No.

That is one of the way you guys wear common sense and rationality down.

You post the same questions, the same mistakes, the same bullshit over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

And if we miss one time correcting your mistake, you claim victory and hound people about it.

The question has been answered, very likely on the very links Andre provided here claiming I did not. Search is your friend, not I.

[Andre II]

65. Illusions

You dare talking about illusions!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
You manage to post repeatedly on the mentioned thread without ever adressing the OP and you have the guts to laim:
"The question has been answered, very likely on the very links Andre provided here claiming I did not. Search is your friend, not I"

Enjoy your illusions.
Remember the last post of the thread

"Again until you don't refer to the OP and start discussing the issues raised in the OP."
:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=225759&mesg_id=226221

It's one thing not to have an answer to an OP.
It's another thing to post repeatedly trying in vain to divert from the OP.
But claiming to have answered the question raised in the OP..... is certainly the masterpiece of illusion.
Or care to post a link to your highly acclaimed answer?

[seemslikeadream]

66. That's the story of the Dungeon isn't it?

The Alegory of the Dungeon?

[Bolo Boffin]

67. Yes, the way CT advocates make it up and help each other maintain their delusions

That's the way the dungeon goes.

[seemslikeadream]

68. Of course bolo knows I was not responding to him

[Bolo Boffin]

69. But I was responding to you. n/t

[Andre II]

70. As you repeatedly

refuse to link to the answer but constantly insist that the OP is answered
I've permitted myself to ask for the help of other researchers.
Maybe they are able to find the mysterious answer you're talking about.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. Since I was responding to you when I answered your questions and you responded back

and you STILL don't know where my answers are, I'm afraid not much is going to help you.

[Andre II]

72. Qualification

Just the fact that indeed you responded to me does hardly qualify for your claim "This was answered in another thread. Andre didn't accept the answer, of course."
Maybe you've forgotten actually adress what the OP was about?

[Bolo Boffin]

73. The OP here or the OP there?

After all, in post #37 you changed the topic of your OP and that's what we've been discussing since.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

16. weren't there 4 military exercises going on that day?

[wildbilln864]

17. excellent reminder! thanks! n/t

[k-robjoe]

54. Update

Update from the people who made "Neocon", with more witnesses who saw a white plane coming in towards the Pentagon, on a path inconsistent with the official story :

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/121007_b_white.htm