Remember that white plane that everyone was always curious about over Washington, D.C? The one that we all wanted to find the original source footage for? The one I used in the 2nd Edition?

I finally got my hands on the original AP footage. And that, coupled with the earlier footage that was released in a Discovery Channel documentary that shows a side shot, I can say with almost 100% certainty that the plane flying over Washington, D.C. was an E-4B Doomsday Plane.

These E4-Bs were participating in Global Guardian, and this one was 1 out of 3 that were circling the airspace that morning. They remained airborne even after Global Guardian was cancelled.

I'm going through my footage right now, just thought I'd mention it. If you guys really want I can upload a small Quicktime of it. It's just a much longer version of the shot that's already out there.

Right now I'm going through the complete unedited bin Laden footage. I'm about 24 minutes in, and he makes this weird reference to a dream he had about a soccer game against the Americans, and their players were pilots...something...

Just thought I'd let you guys know.

http://www.loosechange911.com/download/whi...ne_pentagon.mp4
MPEG-4 Quicktime

Background info:


The worst case scenario. The E-4B is designed as a last resort for US military leadership to use to control a nuclear war if all land based systems have been destroyed. (http://www.military.cz/wallpaper/page1/e4b.jpg)





The E-4B "Doomsday" Planes

One of the most technologically advanced weapons in the United States' war chest is the E-4B National Airborne Operations Center (NOAC). This aircraft has many common nicknames including "the doomsday plane", "TCAMO" (Take Charge And Move Out), the "Nightwatch", and "NEACP" (pronounced "Knee Cap" for National Emergency Airborne Command Post). This plane has many myths associated with it but its primary purpose is to provide a safe and livable platform for the President, Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to use as a mobile command post.

Early in the Cold War the US military leadership determined the United States' policy of not launching a first strike nuclear attack would place the US at a great disadvantage in the event of an attack by a hostile country. In the event of a Soviet first strike many, if not all, ground based command centers would be destroyed. It was to prevent this from happening and to insure the survival of the US command capabilities that the E-4A (the predecessor to the E-4B) was created. The E-4B is based on a modified Boeing 747-200 airframe and is designed to support 114 people at full battle ready.

It is built on three decks.The first being primarily storage, support systems, machine rooms, and crew quarters. The middle deck containing a command work area, conference room, briefing room, operations room work area, communications area, and rest quarters. This plane is made to survive an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), has state-of-the-art direct fire countermeasures, and is capable of being airborne for more than a week. One E-4B is always on alert and as of August 1994 the E-4B is also responsible for communications for FEMA in times of extreme national crisis.

Yes, it was identified a while ago through pilotsfor911truth.com

Interestingly, one of our new witnesses describes this plane exactly, with the exception that it has 2 engines not 4.

White, one blue stripe, 3-4 numbers on the tail fin.

2007 is going to be an interesting year.

Then it's not the same plane. This one is white, with 4 engines. It was probably flying over DC all morning, before the Pentagon was struck.

Good find. Do you know what time the AP footage was taken?

No sir, I'm not given a time frame. It's an APTN shot, filmed after the Pentagon was struck. It's shot during the time the Secret Service was evacuating the White House area. I would imagine between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM.

Don't forget there was at least one other large plane in the air above the Pentagon around the time it was struck, though this may not be the one described by your witness: a C-130 cargo plane that had just taken off from Andrews Air Force base. By "coincidence," this same plane also happened to be in the Shanksville area later on, at the time when Flight 93 supposedly crashed there. See:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...d#a936c130asked
9.36 a.m. September 11, 2001: Military Cargo Plane Asked to Identify Flight 77

Dylan, I must say that i really like your work and this effort to show the world the truth, As for this E-4B Doomsday Plane Why is it flying anyway? The Pres. is in Fla. and I just pray and hope that when you get Older you run for President couse Sir you have my vote hands down.

Everything you need to know is here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...futt#a900offutt

Excerpt:
Because of Global Guardian, three special military command aircraft with sophisticated communications equipment, based at Offutt, are up in the air the morning of 9/11. These E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes—nicknamed “Doomsday” planes during the Cold War—are intended to control nuclear forces from the air in times of crisis. 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. The Federal Advisory Committee (whose chairman is retired Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft) is aboard one of these Doomsday planes, being brought to Offutt to observe the exercise. Media accounts indicate Global Guardian is cancelled at Offutt shortly after the second WTC tower is hit (at 9:03 a.m.), with staff switching to “real-world mode.” However, even after Global Guardian is called off, the three E-4Bs remain airborne.

Merc...how did your eyewitness manage to see numbers on the tailfin of a plane flying at least a thousand feet in the sky? Are you just blowing smoke up our ass?

Oh yeah, I know it's not the same plane.

It's probably supposed to look like it, and when it performed the flyover it would blend in with this mysterious e4b.

The thing is our witness isn't in DC. She's near Hoffman Boston Elementary, remember the white plane girl, Dylan? Her name is Veronica.

Her cousin is the one who got a better look, remember, from the bathroom?

She is the witness I am referring to.

But according to some people (gravy) there was no trainign exercises or war games/drills happening on 9/11 :D

From Veronica and her cousin's stand-point she could have barely read anything on that plane, much less numbers no more than a foot high. And, I remember her telling us it was all white. Now she changed her story?

See, the above post.

I don't blow smoke up people's ass.

It was in front of her bathroom window if you remember Veronica's testimony.

One other witness in that neighborhood said it had numbers on the 'tail' of the plane.

Oh I agree, but we really don't know how fast the plane was going by.

And two people mentioned "numbers".

'Veronica' did say white, her cousin, Dylan, who got a better look from her second floor bathroom window, said white with a blue stripe and numbers on the tail fin.

Ya know what, instead of arguing this with you, I'll just wait for the proof.

I can't believe they'd take a two-engine plane painted up like a E4-B just to fly it over Arlington and the Pentagon and later claim it was an American Airlines 757. There's no logic in that.

Hmm, a "Doomsday" plane flying around on 9/11. I'm sure it's just another one of those pesky coincidences.

No. Global Guardian, the exercise involving those planes being bumped up from October to September, 2001 some time after March, is a coincidence.

;)

Dang, The lazer on top of it reminds me of something I saw on this show called 'Future Weapons' . It's some lazer that can take a missle out of the sky.
But the plan on this show was smaller and the lazer was on the bottom.

Dylan, I wasn't trying to argue with you.

I've been trying to be cool with you.

I've also been trying to contact you.

Why are you drawing this line in the sand dude?

It's water under the bridge as far as we're concerned.

We desperately need to know if it is ok to use the Lloyd clip (you can use the recording Craig has if you want), the white plane girl (Veronica-we have our own, but it's not as eventful), a piece of Edward, and the McGraw interview.

I know you told us we could use it for our presentation, but that was before we decided that presentation had to be in documentary form.

I promise you dude, we will not misrepresent you or LTW.

I can assure you that this is your best move. This documentary will be so thorough and so complete, and it will be the first WTF! smoking gun proof to start the ball rolling, towards an investigation into WHO and not IF.

Think about how awkward it's going to be when this stuff comes out and we see you at functions, man.

Let's dead this nonsense and keep things cool.

What are these functions you speak of? Since when is 9/11 about celebrity?

My problem is the way you couldn't keep personal politics out of the forum and embark on a character assassination campaign towards Russell.

You called and left anonymous voicemails on his phone, playing clips of your eyewitnesses. What are you, in high school again?

And I know how you have and continue to talk shit about me behind my back. That doesn't bother me.

All I was saying above is that I cannot fathom why they would fly a two-engine plane painted up like an E4-B over Arlington and the Pentagon, so they could later call it a 757. Explain to me the logic, and I'll retract my statement.

I'm not drawing any lines in the sand. I just don't agree with the way you've conducted yourself.

You want a thorough and "so complete" documentary? How about the one we've been writing for the past three months, with David Ray Griffin's assistance? The one we've triple-checked our references on? Somehow I have trouble believing that convincing people that a plane flew over the Pentagon as opposed to into it is going to have any effect on the general public's opinion as to what happened on 9/11. Maybe that makes me crazy.

ACTUALLY it was identified back in july on the old loose change site. i know this because i was the one who started the discussion of it. jdx later took the info and incorrectly argued that it was an e-6. see here :

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...topic=9796&st=0

he does atleast give me credit for finding the links originally. the discussion occured before pilots for 911 truth was even up and running, but thanks for directing the credit towards you guys. i appreciate that.

i cant remember exactly who first posted the idea of it being an e4-b but it was directly after dylan had posted some of his footage of the aircraft in which you can see the hump.

i also had an e-mail exchange with linda brookhart, the woman who took the photograph of the plane prior to the pentagon being hit, just after the white house was evacuated.she expressed her opinion that it was likely to be a military plane and also described her exchanges with the fbi and a relative who was a high ranking military officer. she was told by all of them to stop asking questions and to drop the subject.

and just for the record i had suggested back then that the plane had been airborne for the days wargames. but at that time was unable to find verifiable evidence that it was, other than the photos and videos. im starting to wonder if this microphone is even on.

in my opinion the e4b is where cheney was getting his minute by minute countdown while in the white bunker.

there are still seperate accounts of the white 2 engine plane that resembled a fokker. it has been described as having 2 engines in the rear and i cant recall ever seeing a description of the engines being on the wings.

and there is ALSO the matter of the low flying aircraft flying east 6 miles southeast of the white house at 9:35:41. this heading and location put it on a direct course to andrews AFB.

Bush flew to Offutt AFB on 9/11, coincidentally. What else goes on there one wonders?

Look man, you know what I meant. I meant the conferences/symposiums. I don't want to do this. I didn't want to be in the spotlight. I wanted to be behind the scenes. That's why I was trying to work for you to help produce an earth shattering documentary. You weren't feeling it.

Dude, you never chimed in. You DEFINITELY didn't follow along. So I don't think you're qualified to comment on it. He did the same thing to us which is what spawned the susbsequent reaction.

Wrong. I heard him pick up played the clip to see what he'd do. It was a test and a way of reaching out. He had the opportunity to call me back then and I was hoping he would. Hell he had the opportunity to call before then. He could have said, 'Ok, maybe I was wrong, let me call Merc or Lyte and end this conflict.' I did it to chill him out on his campaign against us. But he did what I expected. He posted it publically and tried to use it against us. I thought it was funny, and I was hoping we could all have a good laugh about it in the end. But no.

Dude, if you would answer your phone. I can answer any questions you may have about what I've said or haven't said.

Well, it would kinda look like an AA or could brushed off by skeptics when they heard "white" they say it's the sun hitting it, and that could be the case. And it could not. The blue stripe=blue stripe of AA. Regardless, when it comes out the other side it could be blended into the identity of this mysterious e4b plane.

Well, a lot of people feel the same about you and Russell. But isn't all of that irrelevant compared to the gravity of the situation?

Well is it going to contain a smoking gun that 100% PROVES 9/11 was an inside job? Because that's what we intended our work to result in if it took us that way. We are dead serious about contacting Arlington Police, Pentagon Police, Reps Ron Paul and Cynthia McKinney, Fox, Cnn, ABC, CBS, NBC...anyone who will listen to us.

We too have been in contact with David Ray Griffin, he is including the evidence we obtained in his book.

Dylan,

Perhaps you don't get it yet.

If the plane is on the North side of the Citgo it HAD TO fly over...there is no alternative. It *could not* have hit the poles and it definitely could have not caused the damage we see to the trailer/wall and the damage inside which ONLY lines ups EXCLUSIVELY with a plane traveling from the Southwest or SOUTH of the Citgo leading up to the C-ring exit hole.

It was poorly simulated damage, Dylan

This plane is doing some crazy stuff man, I'm telling you man, we've been busy. We've been talking to A LOT of people. Again, I remind you I offered my services before this all got ugly man. As a matter of fact, this should have been something we handled in person or on the phone.

Again, we are, no I am, extending the olive branch.

Do you want to talk or do you want to just wait for our evidence, as you put it?

You know you are right, and I meant to actually correct it.

But I thougt it was finalized on pilots.

My bad.

not a big deal. thank you for the acknowledgement though :D sorry if i came across pissy, i was taking out irritation with another situtation out on the keyboard.

That airplane on the video over DC looks like an Airbus A340. The swept wing matches the A340 Airbus. Hard to get a good clean look at it.

Wouldn't a NEOCON plane would be at 25,000 and above when on patrol?

I may be a little lost here. What is significant about the sighting of the E-4B if in fact that's what it was?

All details in regards to 9/11 MUST be scrutinized with a fine toothed comb.

And when they are a whole bunch of little critters keep crawling out.



We will be releasing an eyewitness study on the Pentagon soon that presents 5 eyewitnesses to the plane who describe it as "white".

One specifically says white with blue stripes.

In addition to this we have smoking gun testimony from 3 eyewitnesses at the citgo station who all swear on their lives that the plane flew on the north side making it impossible to have hit the light poles.

Because of this we believe the plane flew over the building.

Since the "white" claim has been corroborated 5 times we believe the flyover plane was likely painted to have some characteristics of an AA jet but was also painted so it's identitiy would be blended with the E-4B or E-6 or whatever it was as well as the C-130 to anyone who might have seen it flyover.

Yes it seems complicated but the plan is actually quite simple once it's revealed.

Well, personally, I dont care how many witnesses you get 5 years later that say the plane flew North of the Citco.

Its 5 years later. NOBODY is going to put any credence in that. Especially if that is what you are saying PROVES the plan couldnt have hit the Pentagon.

Give me witnesses that saw the flyover. More witnesses that said where it went.

And, refute or explain all of the physical evidence at ther Pentagon.

I think youre delusional.

Hi Dylan,

I saw Merc's apology to you and I saw how you accepted it and I must say that I am very glad.

For the record I have NEVER had beef with you of any sort and I would like to say that I feel it's important that we keep an open dialogue about information that we have obtained.

To backtrack for one moment in response to your post here I would simply like to say that it was Russell who attacked us with a "character assasination" campaign and we merely responded.

We wanted to talk to him in private about the specific details of the evidence but he refused and decided to slander us on the jref forums as well as here instead. Merc playing the clip of one of the witnesses for him over the phone was his "gangsta" way of getting him to listen anyway. Obviously there was no harm in that.

Regardless that is water under the bridge as I refuse to let petty disputes cloud the main goal here which is exposing 9/11 truth.

I really want you (and everyone) to understand the gravity of the testimony we have obtained.

Remember when we were detained by the feds for recording 30 seconds of footage from the citgo station?

Well we now have over an hour and a half of footage of testimony from 4 witnesses all filmed on the citgo property.

3 of them are eyewitnesses to the plane and ALL 3 of them claim the same thing.

That it flew on the north side.

There is no way they could all be wrong.

The testimony is so detailed, so strong, and so corroborated that NOBODY will be able to doubt it without calling them all insane.

Beyond the 3 witnesses at the citgo were are presenting 10 more accounts that we have obtained including Lloyd, Father McGraw, and Veronica (provided you are cool with it).

Many of them were either in or near the neighborhood where Veronica was but we even have a couple of route 27 witnesses.

5 described the plane as white.

We are not trying to keep details from you.

The only reason we have kept the names of the witnesses confidential until we release the testimony is so they won't be harrassed by jref'ers.

Just as we offered to Russell you are welcome to call us to discuss details in private.

Merc has tried calling you and I have tried emailing you so now we are reaching out publically.


As Merc said we have also been in discussions with David Ray Griffin and this data will be presented in his new book.


So consider this an open apology from myself as well just in case there happened to be some words uttered on this forum to Russell or anyone that were not in the best of taste.

And consider it an open invitation for you to contact us to discuss further details about what we will be presenting this month.

In the mean time check out the launch of our website which is where everyone will be able to view our documentary for free as soon as possible.

www.ThePentaCon.com


Sincerely,
Craig aka Lyte Trip

You won't when you see the testimony.

Seriously you guys arnt doing 9/11 truth movement any favours with attacking of each other espically high profile supporters like ur selves leave all personal attacks and indifferences too "behind scenes" like over phone and etc. All this arguing could be used against u's espically if you most well known support cant even agree with one another and are attacking each other over very public forums. Cool off guys...

we already have confirmation that it was an e4b, aside from that the faa had cleared the washington airspace long before the plane was spotted. also there are other videos and other photographic evidence that confirm its shape. and no US carriers use an airbus340, and neither does the military. so if it were an airbus 340 it would be flown by a non military, non-us carrier, in an airspace that had been cleared of all civilian and supposedly military aircraft. given that set of facts im sticking with e4-b.

what becomes significant about this plane being an e4-b is that we have been told that the c-130 that had taken off from andrews airforce base was the only aircraft any where near flight 77. also siginificant are the capabilities of the e-4b. its part of the command and control structure of the military and the executive branch of the government. this aircraft has radar capabilities, is open to all channels and forms of communications and is described as being the 'flying pentagon'. this plane would be aware of and tracking any and all planes within a 50 mile radius.
could it have done anything about an attack? not likely, it has no weapons capabilities. though it is one of these airplanes that is being fit with an air to ground laser. no i do not believe that this particular e-4b had a laser on it. this does show us however that the administration is again lying about an aspect of 9-11, and gathering information that would have been available to this aircraft would help determine what happened that day.

ok, one thing id like to say and make clear, the white jet, the e-4b is not the same jet that you and merc are describing. the flight path of the e4-b and the flight path of your plane are totally different. the e4-b came from the direction of the white house, flew towards the pentagon and then around the area of arlington national turned and headed north. this would in no way be the plane that flew over the school and also has 2 more engines than the one you guys describe. if everyones accounts are correct there may have been no less than 4 planes in the imediate airspace that day, 'flight 77', the c-130, the e-4b and your plane. interestingly enough i have found a reference from the NEACP transcripts that indicates there was also a low flying aircraft flying on an easterly heading at 9:35:41 6 1/2 miles southeast of the whitehouse. IF the attack on thepentagon happened earlier than claimed, 32 or 34 after as evidenced by the wall clocks or the doubletree video, then this might just be your aircraft.

Thanks for the clarification water_bender and I will say that we are in absolute agreement.

They are definitely not the same craft as the plane that the witnesses describe was a 2 engine passenger jet.

We are simply claiming that evidence suggests that the passenger jet may have been painted to look similar to the E-6 and that perhaps ALL of the additional planes were called in to blend with the identity of the passenger flyover jet for deliberate confusion.

This way if anyone called to report the flyover jet they would just be told that it was the E-6 or the C-130.

sorry i had misread your original post. i do think that it was an e-4b however rather than an e-6. especially considering that there are now confirmed reports that is was there for the days wargames.

I'm just used to calling it an E-6 but I don't doubt that you're right.

Im sure your witnesses will be more compelling than this man.

I am a Pentagon survivor, I held airplane parts in my hand that day as I did my small bit of service. I talked to people *at the time* who spoke of reading the airline name from the side of the aircraft as it crashed into our building. I am a just-retired AF Lt Colonel, with 25 years of service at retirement. I have served at the Pentagon, the White House, the State Department, and the US Air Force Academy, in addition to being an ICBM commander. I held, at my retirement, a TS/SCI clearance. I say there was an airplane, I saw it.

Am I a liar?

Lt Col Hal Bidlack, Ph.D.
USAF Retired

note: I do not, as a rule, post on this forum any more, but I can not allow this assault on the honor of the people we lost that day to go unchallenged.

Hmmm.... with all those military connections and his level of clearance doesnt seem like it would be very hard to convince that man that it is in the national interest to lie. men used to taking orders all their lives dont really end the habit upon retirement. and supposing he is telling the truth, how does that disprove anything said here? so he saw A plane. so he held A plane part. so did lots of people. are you trying to tell me he knows for a fact that the piece he held was from flight 77 the american airlines boeing 757, sn n644aa?


no explain to me how in the hell searching for the truth is dishonoring anyone? we all still acknowledge that there we deaths. alot of them. and that they are tragic. we still want the murders caught. you seem complacent to accept a bogus and incorrect conviction. if you want to find someone guilty of dishonoring them maybe you should go look in the mirror.

and whats the testimony of a single eye witness do for anything? even three, though compelling, surely cant be used as a cornerstone to base all your beleifs on.