Mysterious Pentagon planes

[k-robjoe]

Here´s a report about someone who actually got a photo of a plane passing over the White House just before the crash :

"A chance snapshot LINDA BROOKHART got of a low-flying jetliner over the White House grounds a week ago Tuesday, minutes before the suicidal hijacker crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, appears to be the terror plane. And it may be the only such photo in existence.

Realizing what she had photographed, Linda, vice president of the Springfield-based Taxpayers' Federation of Illinois, notified the FBI of the picture Tuesday morning.

"I am positive that's what it is," she says.

Using a point-and-shoot 35mm camera, she snapped the picture from directly below the jetliner, which was at such low altitude that her full-frame photo shows the belly of the plane nose to tail. She aimed and snapped the shutter instinctively.

"I just knew that plane should not have been where it was," Linda says." (...)

Because there are so many trees and buildings in the area, she lost sight of the plane in seconds, so if it was headed for the Pentagon at the time, or changed course before the crash, she doesn't know. She didn't hear the impact or an explosion ,but soon after saw smoke rising from the Pentagon.

"It had to be the same plane," she concluded. " http://www.taxpayfedil.org/terror.htm



"Photo taken by Linda Brookhart, TFI VP, in restricted airspace near the White House on September 11, 2001. While identity of this airplane is unknown, it is not the plane that struck the Pentagon minutes later." http://www.taxpayfedil.org/dcterror.htm

But this plane has clearly got four engines.



Then there is the videoclip of a plane at the Pentagon that was shown on the BBC during an interview with Barak :

http://thewebfairy.com/video/barak.mpg

But again, the plane seems to have four engines. As can be seen clearer in this pic:



( http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3571 )

It seems to be the same plane.

So... Is it possibly the c-130 that was tailing Flight 77? Well, it seems to me that the c-130 that was tailing Flight 77, would be flying at a higher altitude than Flight 77. When Flight 77 (supposedly) dropped very fast during it´s last minutes of flight, I don´t suppose that the c-130, tailing it, would follow on its tail, doing the same kind of drop. So it seems very odd if noone noticed Flight 77, coming in lower than the c-130, and several people noticed the c-130.

Then there is also this report ( Thnx seatnineb ) :

" JENNINGS(ABC newscaster)
"The White House, of course, is--is--is--has leapt to the forefront of people's concern this morning. And there is a plane circling the White House at the moment." (...)

_______________________________________________________

At least another minute goes by before he says the following.....

________________________________________________________

"JENNINGS:

"Let's go to the White House. Claire Shipman is on the phone. "

"Claire, what's that we're looking at? "

CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting:

"Well, that's what we're trying to figure out right now. All we know is it's this gigantic plume of smoke coming from behind the old Executive Office Building."

http://emperor.vwh.net/9-11backups/abc911.htm.

So here we have a plane that was circling the White House. Is it the same plane. Well, it seems that the ABC people at the White House were keeping an eye on this plane that was circling it, and they don´t mention anything about any other plane passing by.

And they don´t understand what has happened over there in the vicinity of the Pentagon, where the smoke plume is rising.

So was the c-130 circling the White House? While noone saw Flight 77 around?

[ewagner]

1. C-130s are turboprops

That looks like a KC-135 (or maybe just C-135) which is the military version of the old Boeing 707.

On edit: that dark spot near the tail looks to be a refueling assembly so I'd say it was a KC-135.

[lutherj]

2. Frankly, it looks photoshopped. The plane in the first photo looks

identical to the one in the video grab. Same angle, same resolution. Also, the plane in the first photo looks too light (IMHO).

[Dancing_Dave]

4. You should talk to Linda in Springfield about it.

Really.

I can see where you're coming from, but a plane flying at that angle, could be very bright at that time of day (morning).

Some considerations here are what direction the picture was taken from, what kind of camera was used, etc.

It's not really the same resolution as the video grab, it's a bit a higher.

[Dancing_Dave]

3. Very Interesting Find!

Still no Flight 77 at the Pentagon...

Very little reason to believe that 77 ever made it back to Washington DC from where it went off radar, hundreds of miles to the west in Ohio.

Air traffic controllers observing the movements of the plane that went by the Whitehouse before executing a fancy spiral maneuver towards the Pentagon, though from it's maneuverability that it must be a military plane.

Now we know they were right.

[ewagner]

5. Here's a C130

<>

[pat1962]

6. plane on 9-11

I have lived my entire iife in Virginia suburbs and you see this type of plane all the time. If the photo is not doctored then it may be a KC 135 out of Andrews which is located 10 miles from the white house. Prior to 9-11 Andrew was strictly a transport airwing. I have friends who saw the 757 flying down Columbia pike in South Arlington immediately prior to the crash into the pentagon. I don't want to rain on anyones parade but to many people not associated with the crash at the pentagon saw the 757 as it made its approach.

[medienanalyse]

8. it is one of the EC-130 commando solo flights

which were sighted at all incident places on 911.

How many times must I repeat:
- we have these EC-130 confirmed.
- they were in the air in time and place when the whole airspace was shut already in the region between Washiington and NYC
- there has never been proved that any of the "hijackers" were on board of one of the planes
- the six ec-130 have the capability to influence electronics in a 10-miles range including microwave-beams
- the confirmation was obniously a false claim of just a "transport flight" just pasing by and having a look just at the place of the crashes - when not even one fast jet-fighter in QEA-status was able to be there (but these lame ducks)

good to haave the photos now. before I only was told about them

[k-robjoe]

11. Another pic

that might be of interest :

http://www.911digitalarchive.org/images/files/161.500px.pjpeg

I came across this on a letsroll thread. Some guy presented it as a pic of the C-130 (or EC-130) passing through the smoke plume.

[MercutioATC]

12. That pic is NOT of a C-130. The profile is wrong.

The plane in the photos has four turbofan engines and swept wings. A C-130 has four turboPROP engines and no swept wing.

Did you even LOOK at the pictures before you posted?

[k-robjoe]

14. Calm down

It was a QUESTION, could it be the C-130.
I agree with you, it looks like it is definately not the C-130 (or EC-130).

What is it, and what is it doing, passing ( /circling (?) ) over the White House ( Restricted airspace ), and how come the BBC showed images of it, seemingly convinced that this was the attack plane.

[RH]

17. over the white house?

According to what was it over the White House?

In the photo it is obviously not directly overhead, and that would also be confirmed by the fact that it was soon lost sight of.

I'd guess that it was as far as three miles away, somewhere to the south and as much as a mile high.

[RH]

28. On second thoughts

looking at the way it lines up with the building features it looks like it was a couple of miles up and and maybe a mile away geographically.

[MercutioATC]

34. I posted in reply to Post #8, which was a statement, not a question.

[DulceDecorum]

7. There is a $10,000 bounty for genuine Penta-plane photos

and so far,
it has gone unclaimed.

[RH]

9. here we have a plane that was circling the White House?

I saw nothing in the Linda Brookhart story to say that anything was circling.

[k-robjoe]

10. Not in Brookharts story

The comment about circling was in the ABC report :

"The White House, of course, is--is--is--has leapt to the forefront of people's concern this morning. And there is a plane circling the White House at the moment." (...)

[FannySS]

13. Joe Vialls presented theese pics 2 years ago...

http://www.joevialls.co.uk/

[k-robjoe]

15. And he thought it was Flight 77

And the images were so unclear that you couldn´t really tell.

Now we have some clearer images, and we have this other story with a pic of a four engine plane, and it´s starting to look like this :
It´s not Flight 77, but a four engine plane, most likely the same plane in both the BBC report and in this other report.

So things ARE moving forward, albeit very slowly.

[RH]

16. things ARE moving forward?

I do not begin to understand that comment.

The Linda Brookhart photo was already online in 2001. The html page is dated 10/27/01.

It since croppoed up on DU.

So what is new then?

How did anything move forward?

Airliners were still landing at Dulles Airport after 9:50. If one happened to be in the sky some time before that, so what?

Somewhere on the Internet I heard that Flight 77 was seen from another airliner; a passenger had noticed. Whether or not that is true, it is certainly possible. Planes were also landing at Reagan and I'd expect a pilot to notice another in an obvioulsy unauthorised location a few miles on front of him.

The persistent asumption that if something did not happen to be reported on the Internet, then it did not happen at all is laughably absurd.

[k-robjoe]

18. My saying that things are moving forwards

was referring to getting a better understanding of what it is we have going with these very confusing tales, pics and videoclips.

I forgot that I have to make it absolutely clear what I´m saying, otherwise RH will be right on spot with his preconceptions.

[medienanalyse]

19. plane count

We have several planes now over the Pentagon:
- AAL77
- the plane seen on the photo and the Video
- the C-130 confirmed by pilot and commission
- an EC-130 - obviously identical with the above

This flying circus in a generally restricted area is comparable with the Flying Circus in Pennsylvanias Shanksville.

Additionally to the general restriction we have the order by the FAA concerning the airspace between Washington and New York since the second impact.

Wouln?t it be nice if i.e. a commission would ask the NORAD and the FAA to kindly release the radarscreen shots of the hundreds of Radar-screens in Andrews, Reagan airport and so on

and let the ATCs kindly explain what and who and why these planes were in this place in this time? And no fighter jet`?

[k-robjoe]

21. Did it come back

tweny minutes later, to cause fear on the ground once more?

Here is an excerpt from Henrik Melvangs site:

"This (..) Air-plane had 4 engines (we can therefore be certain that it was a Boeing 747)(...)(#)
It was shown several times on TV from Sept. 11 -and in the weeks that followed. I have seen videoclips of this particular Boeing 747 on both danish- and german TV. The videoclip with the Boing 747 was typically accompanied with the following narrator speak:
"Later that morning in Washington,.... ANOTHER airplane caused panic,...............(the picture of the Boeing with 4 engines was then shown).....Narrator:..... But it disappeared from the sky over Washinton and later crashed down in Pennsylvania" (Source: "SAT 1" German TV)
Some reporters said that this Boing 747 later crashed down in Pennsylvania !?
(But the Pennsylvania plane "Flight 93" was a Boeing 757 and had ONLY 2 engines and not 4 engines - how do you explain this !?)."


I´m not sure about this, but since it says "later that morning in Washington" I`m wondering if that means "after the Pentagon crash".
(I have mailed Henrik Melvang and asked about this.)

(#) There´s been some other suggestions here (and elsewhere).

[k-robjoe]

23. One suggestion

to what plane type it could be, is the J-STAR.

Pic at: http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3571&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 ( Bottom post )

I don´t have a clue if this is a likely theory.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[MercutioATC]

35. That's NOT an EC-130 in the pictures above.

It has jets and the profile is wrong.

Try again.

[k-robjoe]

36. C-130 / EC-130

Medienanalyse wrote :

> "- the C-130 confirmed by pilot and commission
- an EC-130 - obviously identical with the above"

I don´t think medienanalyse is in this post arguing that the plane in the BBC video and on the White House pic is an EC-130.

He is counting that one as a an as yet unidentified plane.

And in addition to this plane he is counting the Flight 77, and the C-130 ( or EC-130 if Medienanalyse is right ).

[medienanalyse]

37. Both correct

Yes I was counting. And yes, Mercutio was right and helpfull as always to mention the wings. Really I could not imagine there were even more planes in the sky in these very minutes above Washington. Thank you, Mercutio !
I always wonder how the orders are to bring enlightenment to the 911-movement: by information or by disinfo. Anyways - here we face real new information.
But: it makes no sense to speculate about the nature of this plane. I looked into the 193rd homepage, the Commando Solo guys try to get new Hercules machines which is understandable when we understand what they are emitting. No good for the electronic equipment of new planes. Although a B747 is old enough with its decades since the conception to be called old it wont do the job. And: we have the EC-130 which was there.

The only solution is the taes which were made in all the ARTCCs and the control centers of the airports of the Radar-screens. And they do not release them and for sure they do not explain the Flying Circusses.
End of this investigation again.

[RH]

20. preconceptions?

Which preconception?

Which better understanding?

Which confusion?

If you did happen to have a photo of Flight 77 in the vicinity what would you hope to learn from it?

:shrug:

[k-robjoe]

22. RH

This is like :

When we first have some bad pics showing a plane, with some claiming it is Flight 77, some claiming it is not, and then later we have better pics showing that the plane is definately not Flight 77, as it clearly has four engines, (and not the C-130, as it has the wrong shape etc.), then we have reached a better understanding of what we see in these pics.

[RH]

24. "We"?

It is obvious at a glance that the aircraft in the Brookhardt photo is neither a B757, nor a C130.

Looks to me like a B747.

So why does this matter?

Do you think that a B747 or something else with four engines hit the Pentagon?

[seatnineb]

25. It matters.....

Because that plane was flying in restricted airspace.......

Only a military plane would have had authorization to be flying over the White House......


Which basically means this:



....is one of these(U.S AirForce KC-135):




Check out what Bob Hunt had to say...........
"I talked to a number of average people in route who said they saw the plane hovering over the Washington Mall Area at an altitude lower that the height of the Washington Monument"
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/03/15/arjj031502.htm

And rh...........

Dont bother with this...........

They(other eye-witnesses) reported to him(Bob Hunt) they could clearly see the markings of an American Airlines airliner and some even said they could make out faces of passengers in the aircraft windows.
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/03/15/arjj031502.htm

......You'll regret it.................

[RH]

29. How do you know that

anything was in restricted airspace?

How exactly did you calculate the height of the plane?

Or is it just because somebody said "I just knew that plane should not have been where it was," in the same sort of way that hundreds of people just knew that an airliner hit the Pentagon, because they'd seen it?

And you do realise, dont you, that Reagan Aiport is in restricted airspace albeit that airliners come and go all day long and within a stone's throw of the White House?

I had no intention to bother with any more crap from The Sierra Times. Wasted too much time there before. People who fail to correct demonstrable errors when pointed out are filed in my book under Deliberate Disinformation.

[k-robjoe]

31. I´m sending you a PM

trying to clear up some of the misunderstandings about what I am saying.

( It has no interest for others I think. )

[seatnineb]

38. Answer:

rh asks:

How do you know that anything was in restricted airspace?

Answer:

Because of this..........

"About 10 minutes ago, there was a white jet circling overhead. Now, you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted air space. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, POINTING UP AT THE JET IN THE SKY."
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.06.html

If this plane was not committing nefariouse deeds then it was authorized to be there............

So.......

It could only have been one of these babes.........



And it would be to nice to know:

1)Where did it come from?

2)Why was it there?

3)Where did it go?

[RH]

39. I see.

Hundreds of witnesses saw an American Airline jet swoop in to hit the Pentagon and while you are strangely willing to completely discount their opinion of that the opinion of somebody who thought he saw something over the White House is Gospel.

Is that right?

[seatnineb]

40. Wrong.

There is no doubt about this plane flying over the Capitol and the White House......

The only doubt is when this plane flew over the Capitol and the White House........

Even if this plane flew over the White House AFTER the Pentagon was hit.........

There was still only a few minutes in it...........as the ABC report testifies....

Ray LaHood of Illinois, backed up Mica's account, saying he had seen a plane flying low near the Capitol dome on Tuesday morning and he believed it was before the Pentagon had been hit.

"As I was crossing the street I saw a large passenger plane come into the air space very near the Capitol dome, circle around the west side of the dome,'' he said.



LaHood said he spoke to another congressman who was with him,and I said, I think this is awfully peculiar that a plane would be flying that pattern, I've never seen one fly that near to the Capitol.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-913circled.story


As for some of the Pentagon eye-witnesses.........

It is a fact that some of them contradict themselves as well as eachother.............

And .....yeah...I don't believe those ones............

[k-robjoe]

41. Reply from Henrik M.

Reply from Henrik Melvang :

"The four engine plane was shown on several TV channels
on Sept11 and in the days that followed.
Not many times, but a few times.
On TV nobody commented on the fact that the airplane had 4 engines.

You ask me WHEN it was recorded ?
Before or after Pentagon was on fire ?
I have no idea - since the TV stations did not say anything about:
a) When it was seen
b) Who filmed it "

( No reply from Dick Eastman yet. )

[k-robjoe]

30. I did not get

a reply from Henrik M. yet, but I´m thinking it´s interesting that also this team from german television was convinced that this four engine plane had been hijacked, even if they were fully aware that this wasn´t the plane that hit the Pentagon.
Must have been convinced by this by the manner it was flying in.

seatnineb wrote : >"U.S AirForce KC-135"

Interesting.

Here is a quote from Dick Eastman on the four engine plane:


" (...) there was a large four-engine aircraft doing exhibishionistic dives at the Capitol Building across the Potomac. This was so amazing that it was both photographed and video taped. The photo taken from the Capitol. The video was actually shown on the BBC. This diving plane was taken by many observers as Flight 77 itself. People watching from across the Potomac reported seeing the plane "diving at an irrecoverable angle"."

Most of this we allready know. The photo, and the video shown on BBC. That observers ( among them the BBC team )thought it was the attack plane.

What I haven´t seen anywhere else is the comment about it doing "exhibishionistic dives". He is citing some witness reporting it was "diving at an irrecoverable angle".

But when I google for "diving at an irrecoverable angle", all I get is Dick Eastman sites. And he doesn´t give any source.

I don´t suppose anyone knows anything about where he may have this from?

[RH]

32. "irrecoverable angle"

The original quote was

"The sight of the 757 diving in at an unrecoverable angle is frozen in my memory, but at the time. I did not immediately comprehend what I was witnessing."

It is still online here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins040902.asp

It is not then such a shock of course that Eastman chooses to ignore the rest of it, e.g.

I shouted something both extremely profane and sacrilegious and told my friend, "They hit the Pentagon. We're under attack. Gotta go."

In view of that I see no reason to suppose that "irrecoverable angle" was meant to mean anything other than that there was no way that the plane was going to avoid the eventual impact.

"exhibishionistic dives" (plural?) is of course crap.

Why do people still waste time on that sort of garbage?

[k-robjoe]

33. You have some good points for a change

If this is what Dick Eastman is quoting, then you are right to call it crap.

I will e-mail him and ask. ( I prefer to give a man a chance to defend himself before I "assasinate" him. )

[BeFree]

45. Thanks RH

Lets see, the "plane" which, as some say, hit the pentagon, flew at an angle so shallow that it knocked over 20 foot high light poles hundreds of feet from the impact zone, and yet missed the grass outside of the building, right?

Yet, your link, from a right-wing rag, stating that the plane flew in at an "irrecoverable angle".

A real contradiction there. It was either a shallow angle approach, or a steep angle, as from your linked article. Can't be both.

Something is wrong with the stories, eh?

The 'facts' and eyewitness accounts do not fit well, do they?

[MrSammo1]

27. Overseas

It was just BushCo's overseas propaganda jet.

[k-robjoe]

42. Just got in

a very interesting mail from seatnineb.

Remember that according to the 911 commission, Flight 77s approach path was like this :



( "The path of Flight 77 didn´t bring it over the White House / Capitol area : Commission report
says : "American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330 degree
turn. At the end of the turn ,it was descending through 2,200
feet,pointed straight towards the Pentagon and downtown Washington." )

But here we have another guy who says that he saw a 757 flying low over the Mall :

"My Team Leader came in to say as he was coming in to the building, he saw a 757 flying in a peculiar location roughly over the Mall. (We now know that was the 757 that hit the Pentagon as it did circle downtown DC, supposedly looking for a target, possibly the Whitehouse which is not as easy to pick out from the air as the Capitol or the Pentagon, before heading west again, then turning east for its final run at the Pentagon.)"

Several people claims to have seen this. Could the 911 commission be lying about the approach path? Why?
But here is the whole quote that seatnineb sent me. Because it also mentions an "Air Force E-4", four engine plane, in the area.
Was this the mysterious four engine plane?

-----------------------------
mole
16-Mar-2002, 10:54 AM :

"No, I was not real close to the Pentagon, though I do know people who claim they saw the 757 "almost fly down a street" seconds before it hit. Here's my story:

I was in FOB-8 (FDA) about 3 blocks from the Capitol, watching CNN on my PC because I had been told by a colleague across the hall that a plane had hit the WTC. (Our Center runs CNN off a Netshow encoder 24/7 so we can get news on the network.) I watched the second plane hit the WTC and shortly after that my wife called to tell me there was smoke showing from further down the Mall in the direction of the Whitehouse. (The Whitehouse is in the same direction as the Pentagon from our location at the foot of Capitol Hill.) There were then many rumors spreading in the hallway that car bombs had gone off on the Hill and near the State Dept, supposedly smoke was showing there as well. We now know that the car bomb rumors were false.

My Team Leader came in to say as he was coming in to the building, he saw a 757 flying in a peculiar location roughly over the Mall. (We now know that was the 757 that hit the Pentagon as it did circle downtown DC, supposedly looking for a target, possibly the Whitehouse which is not as easy to pick out from the air as the Capitol or the Pentagon, before heading west again, then turning east for its final run at the Pentagon.)

About that time, I suspected that there might be other hijacked aircraft targeting other buildings in the area (remember, we thought there might have been car bombs going off too at this point) so I walked across the hall to the lab of the colleague who initially told me the WTC had been hit by an aircraft. Looking out of the north facing 4th floor window, I saw the outline of a 747-400 flying slowly south to north nearly directly over head at a low altitude. Planes never flew there as it is restricted airspace, almost over the Capitol. As it turned over NE DC, roughly Union Station I guess, and banked east, the sun hit the pale colored paint and I could see that it was an Air Force E-4 and not a commercial 747. It was going so slow, it appeared to hang in the air over the Hubert Humphrey (HHS) building (across the street from FOB-8). For a moment it crossed my mind that such an aircraft carries much more fuel and could do considerably more damage than the aircraft that had hit the WTC (at this time it was being reported that those aircraft were commuter planes, we didn't know for sure they were 767's, though the outline sure looked like it to me when I saw the second one disappear into the building on CNN). Us chemists were already thinking of fuel loads and explosive equivalents, combustion temperature, melting point of steel, etc. when we watched the first tower collapse. (I'm hazy in my recall of the exact time we watched this relative to the Pentagon crash.)

Must have been around 10:00 or 11:00 AM we did get word to clear all FDA campuses of non-essential employees. I made my wife and anyone else I could find use the stairs, as I thought there was the possibility of a disruption in electric power. As we made our way out of the parking lot in my truck and onto the jammed street, several police cars came speeding down the wrong side of the street and spun out in the middle of the intersection avoiding other cars and pedestrians. One police car rode up on the sidewalk.

Once out in the stop and go traffic on I-295 south, we were sitting in the cloud of smoke from the Pentagon when a lone F-16 flew over. Probably about that time, the pilot was getting the orders from the Secret Service to protect the Whitehouse at any cost. We now know that was a commercial pilot serving in the Air National Guard (as I recall the news story went) and had been dispatched from Langley AFB about 80 - 100 miles south of DC, in VA. When the F-16 flew over, some construction workers sitting in the back of a pick-up truck in fron of us stood up and cheered.

It took a little under 3 hours to get home and the stink from the fire in the Pentagon could be smelled as far south as Accokeek, MD. Later, on the radio at home, I heard that an E-4 "Looking Glass" plane had been seen by some in the area. It was reported to have been in the area to handle DoD coordination and communications if operations in the Pentagon proved difficult. I never fully bought that explanation, why did it have to be so low and fly straight over downtown DC like it did? No, not a conspiracy though."

http://forums.techguy.org/archive/index.php/t-72752.html

[seatnineb]

43. It is General Myer's e4

So what was one of these doing above the Mall BEFORE the Pentagon was hit?




E-4B National Airborne Operations Center

The E-4B serves as the National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) for the National Command Authorities. In case of national emergency or destruction of ground command control centers, the aircraft provides a modern, highly survivable, command, control and communications center to direct U.S. forces, execute emergency war orders and coordinate actions by civil authorities. There are only four E-4B aircraft in the Air Force inventory, with one constantly on alert.

The E-4B National Airborne Operations Center supports the National Command Authority (NCA) and the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). Other responsibilities include a worldwide, survivable enduring node of the National Military Command System (NMCS) for the purpose of exercising national security responsibilities throughout the full spectrum. of conflict.



Air Combat Command (ACC) is the Air Force single-resource manager for the E-4B, and provides aircrew, maintenance, security and communications support. The Joint Chiefs of Staff actually control E-4B operations and provide personnel for the airborne operations center.

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

Now what was General Myers up to when the Pentagon was hit?

[k-robjoe]

44. mp3

Here is a short news clip on mp3, mentioning the white jet going low and very slowly over the Capitol area.

http://alkali.colug.org/~kaha/whiteplane.mp3

This is definately the same plane described in the post above, the Air Force E-4.

And notice how he underlines that it is white.
Like the four engine plane filmed before the crash.