http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/e-4b.htm

I hope this shuts the kool-aid drinkers up on this topic.

MSGTAS on September 13, 2007 at 10:59 AM

It is an E4-B and I agree with your admonitions to not worry. Some truths just will not be divulged in our lifetimes. I was a SATCOM guy myself.

That said, it seems pretty obvious that the people on board were taking a look at Washington. That’s the only reason that you would circle DC at medium altitude like that. Remember, the E-4B is meant to be flying up at 30,000+ feet. This guy looks like he’s down around 15,000 feet or lower. My guess is that somebody big wanted to get some reliable eyes on Washington to report on what was actually happenning.

Remember that the morning of Sep 11 all was confusion. The first jet hit the WTC and the initial reports were that it was a small plane. The world tuned in just in time to see the second jet hit. Reports were confused and unreliable after that from the TV.

The networks have perched some TV cameras permanently on top of a skyscraper a few blocks north of the White House. I believe those are the cameras which showed smoke coming up from the Pentagon area soon after the WTC attacks but nobody knew what had happenned there. My guess is that some two or three star general ordered the E-4B to make a pass over DC to ascertain what had been hit and then leave the area.

Of course, the Air Force is not going to tell the public anything about the E-4B because: 1) It has nothing to do with the attacks; and 2) Anything they say might give potential enemies some advantage in defeating it.

The Troofers crazed assertion that the E-4B was “Mission Control” for the Sep 11 is absurd, as usual. First, they’re assuming that the US Air Force is going to launch an attack against America. I would very much like to hear a Troofer tell me that to my face so that I can kick him in the balls where he needs it most. Second, why would these suicide jets need any controlling? Even in their own goofy parallel universe, the Mission Control theory doesn’t make sense. Once those airliners got their wheels in the wells, they were independent actors which needed no direction.

The entire SOP of the Presidential plane fleet is to grab the nearest leader get them aloft just in case say that 9-11 hijacker attack was followed by a nuclear terrorist strike or a coordinated overseas conventional strike on US forces with the intent to take advantage of say if a plane had hit the white house and say Bush had been their and killed. Whoever VP Sec Def or or whoever was the 2nd 3rd 4th in command in that plane that was reachable would have been needed to give our forces the green light to do what maybe needed to defend themselves or even retaliate on the fly.

At some point we are going to have to come to terms with the fact that their is a certain portion of people in authority in the US that cannot be compromised or placated. They have pure hatred for the US as it was founded and support our destruction so they can rebuild it in whatever cliche they happen to follow.

Washington, Wilson, Lincoln, FDR, all were war time presidents that loved and would easily die for the freedom of speech. However they were sane men and believed freedom of speech neither was meant to or does support the freedom to damage/destroy the state. All those leaders jailed, deported, censored ect…. groups and leaders who were damaging the US nation during time of war.

Sedition – is a crime and we need to wake the f*ck up and accept some of our leadership are whether for political gain, personal vanity, or willfully hatred of the US are committing or supporting daily acts of Sedition of the US war effort.

We need to draw the line somewhere because from 9-12 on the level of the openness of the Sedition of the GWOT has gotten worse and worse to the point were we have Senators comparing US troops to Stalinist Gulags and we have Generals that are giving reports not being asked “what do you need to win General” but told “we have lost how soon can we retreat and give up this hopeless war”.

Limerick on September 13, 2007 at 10:33 AM

Great logical arguement……I think I just heard some Truthers a$$clowns heads explode.

If Bush was behind 9/11, and the whole thing was staged, there would have been no such need for this plane. But, of course, Truthers are idiotic, they present us with the very evidence to discredit them, unfortunately, they are also too idiotic to even see that.

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 11:45 AM

“Lyingbastardswhohavetheirheadssofaruptheir@sstheycanseewhattheyateforbreakfast”

….probably too long, ya think?

We need a better name.

from Langley and Andrews AFB in Virginia

Ha! That proves a conspiricy!!1! You’re just trying to confuse us by moving AN ENTIRE AIR FORCE BASE to another STATE.

Seriously, these nuts have grasped at smaller straws.

Sorry for the double negatives.

It just doesn’t seem to me that they’d have to give away any secrets to be able to explain the plane being there if it were something that simple.

I’m not buying the Truther bs, but it seems a tad odd to me that they would have been unable to come up with an explanation that didn’t give away security secrets. But it’s possible that I think that way just because I don’t know enough about our military defenses.

If only those clowns on the commission had cut President Bush the same amount of slack when he had to muddle through mounds of gathered intelligence data prior to determining a course of action in response to the 9/11 attack.

fogw on September 13, 2007 at 10:46 AM

Ask the “Truthers” how many of the Democrat Senators actually read the intelligence report to begin with? Oh, and Kerry and Clinton were too busy to read the report.

Wouldn’t something along the lines of “they have been completely and utterly repudiated” been much better?

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 11:00 AM

We’re on the same wavelength today. I was thinking the same, only more along the lines of “they were a pack of lies”.

That plane, as you’ll see in the clip, was most likely an Air Force E-4B flying command post.

I’m glad to know we have something like this and don’t need to know any thing more about it. Somethings just have to be classified – If I know, then our enemies know too.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 10:51 AM

So true. That header they’ve been using “Keeping it Honest in Iraq” really burns me. It implies Bush and Petraeus are liars, so it’s up to CNN to give the public the truth.

…..waiting for the segment “Keeping it Honest at Hillary’s Campaign Headquarters”.

The 9/11 Commission was too busy preparing to bloviate with self-aggrandizing speeches to go through the thousands of things that came at them.

I was also bothered by Hamilton’s somewhat lackluster response to the Truthers when he says, “We of course had heard the conspiracy theories…and we have absolutely no evidence of that”.

Wouldn’t something along the lines of “they have been completely and utterly repudiated” been much better?

There are some things the public does not need to know because their imagination would run wild as it does in this clip and in the congress of today.