Source: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/...tery.plane.CNN

What I can't understand is why this is a "mystery airplane," especially given the nature of the events, and the routinely classified nature of movements of military command and control agencies. It's a specialized version of the Boeing 747, quite probably specialized for military/governmental service.

Sounds like just a bunch of more zanies, to me.

__________________
Ethics Economics - When a company's ethics are determined by what they can ethically get away with (minimal net profit) as opposed to what's good for their long-term bottom line (maximal net profit).

"...only nuclear power can now halt global warming." - James Lovelock, independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist, and an open member of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy

Indeed. It makes total sense why that plane was up there. The next thing conspiracy theorists tend cite about the plane is perceived shiftiness from the government about what the plane does and why it was up there. Apparently conspiracy theorists have never heard of OPSEC.

As for the article I've noticed how CNN leaves "news" like this on their site for days at a time. Although I thought the video did an ok job of providing at least an explanation. Not long after it went up on CNN a thread opened over at ATS.com. I have not browsed it yet but you can bet it's along the lines of the plane was there to facilitate 9/11.

Call me crazy, but you might be onto something. Remember that this is the same country who's Naval personnel on nuclear submarines can't tell you whether there's a nuclear reactor on board.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

It's very important to know if your sub is nuclear (BTW, I pronounce it correctly, new-clear), because that means the difference between staying under for a few hours and staying under for a month.
This discussion reminds me of the Titanic "Mystery Ship". Times change, but what is really different?

__________________
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek
"Carl Sagan sent a message to ET,
Neil Armstrong walked in the Sea of Tranquility
Steve Squyers built Spirit and Opportunity
Dan Haylen upchucked in zero gravity." -Brent Simon, The Space Camp Song

Huh? I know more than a dozen naval submariners, and absolutely none of them have any problems telling me whether or not their sub is powered by nuclear propulsion.

Then again, I posses a security clearance which allows me to know such information. I know that details of classified info have always been the subject of very short strings, depending upon who was listening - it's been inbred to the military and similarly civilian involved (same security clearances).

Might that be the difference?

As to which subs contain what propulsion systems, etc, I have access to, but will never divulge such info on this or any other public, non-SIPRnet board.

Nor do I think would anyone else who has access to similar information.

__________________
Ethics Economics - When a company's ethics are determined by what they can ethically get away with (minimal net profit) as opposed to what's good for their long-term bottom line (maximal net profit).

"...only nuclear power can now halt global warming." - James Lovelock, independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist, and an open member of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

When I was with the nuclear industry, a surprising number of engineering managers (well maybe not all that surprising) either had served on-board subs and carriers or in the refit yards. None of them seemed to indicate any gag-orders and talked about it often, usually the "whoops" stories like imploding a rather large tank due to the vacuum relief line getting clogged.

Especially since thier concern is that the plane was there coordinating the attack proving it was a government cover-up.

Next; I suppose all those fire trucks and ambulances rushing to the scene were to make sure there was no evidence to be found?

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

I believe the restriction is based on nuclear weapons, not reactors. That is, personnel are not allowed to confirm or deny that a given ship is carrying nuclear weapons. This has gotten the Navy banned from a few ports, particularly in New Zealand where the government requires a ship certify that it is "nuke free" before entering port.

This, of course raises the odd prospect of a ballistic missile sub remaining mute over whether or not it is carrying any missiles.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

[DavidC/rocky mode] No, they were rushing to the scene to plant all of the fake evidence and body parts in order to fool the people[/DavidC/rocky mode]

I kid you not. He might not have used those exact words, but he could have.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

I have little doubt that there are perfectly adequate reasons for the plane being where it was that morning. What makes the plane a mystery is the fact that the 9/11 commission failed to even meantion the presence of the plane or its mission in its final report. If they would just explain its mission and why it was there, most of us would put it behind us. The failure to disclose adds unnecessary mystery.

Call me crazy, but you might be onto something. Remember that this is the same country who's Naval personnel on nuclear submarines can't tell you whether there's a nuclear reactor on board.

No, they can't tell you if there are nuclear weapons on board. Big difference.

As for the plane in the video, it sure looks like the E-4B. They used to be based at Andrews AFB, Maryland but are now stationed in Nebraska. It wouldn't be unlikely that the planes (formerly known as the National Emergency Airborne Command Post (pronounced "kneecap") would be scrambled following the 9/11 attack on the United States.

But if the normal procedures are to dispatch the plane during a certain type of event (like anytime the WH is evacuated, or some such thing) then it ends up to be a side-note at best.
It probably didn't make the report because anybody involved probably took it for granted.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Then let there be another independent commission investigate the matter and put the issue to rest. Ignoring questions in a report like the commission report never makes issues go away. News organizations such as cnn as well as many others made inquiries during the commission's investigation but the final report ignored them. I am certain that there is nothing to this issue, but it won't go away unless there is full disclosure. Present the relevant documents and all but the hardcore "conspiracy theorists" will be convinced.

And you'll probably generate a lot more "see they are covering it up".

While I believe there should be full disclosures on some matters, some only need to go as far as enough government oversight to so OK. Especially where security capabilities are concerned.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

From hardcore conspiracy types?? Of course...
However, there are some very thoughtful voices in the crowd now as well... <shrugs> Always seems foolish to not bother put things on the table... it under-cuts trust.

You mean there are non-hardcore ones that are questioning this?

My own personal feeling is that as soon as you start say that things are being covered up when it comes to 9/11, then you are starting to cross the line into hardcores.

There are lots of things that needed to come out in the reports. Mostly because there are things that didn't go as they planned, things that could have been done better, things that went horribly wrong, and things that can be improved on in the future.

If it doesn't relate to one of these categories, then any mention is only there to make somebody feel better. And; I don't want the government wasting time and effort for trivial PR when there are much bigger fish to fry.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Not sure what the argument here is... lots of things went wrong... lots of things odd on that day. The best way to move on would be to lay it all out. That was the stated responsibility of the 9/11 commission. They didn't do that so it looks bad. If the administration doesn't care about how bad it looks... <shrugs> but it seems silly for the administration to get upset when they don't answer simple questions by releasing documents...

Personally I don't think there is a conspiracy, I think there's a lot of arrogance and stupidity... releasing documents may not make things better, but I am hard pressed to see that the action would make things worse. We live in a free society... if there are security issues say so... if not release the stuff...

BTW, just like quite a few people in Texas, I pronounce it like the Pres does. Is there a problem with that?

Sometimes I wonder if Al-Qaeda actually was responsible for the attacks. Even though they took credit for it (doesn't mean they were behind it) and it's been repeated over and over again, perhaps a lie has become fact. Anyways. I don't worry about it too much.

__________________
All moderations in purple.

You ain't nobody 'til you've been banned.

No problem, just that the BA always encourages correct pronunciation on his site, so I thought I should do the same. No different than saying "And by the way, it's Comet Hal-ee, not hay-lee."

__________________
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek
"Carl Sagan sent a message to ET,
Neil Armstrong walked in the Sea of Tranquility
Steve Squyers built Spirit and Opportunity
Dan Haylen upchucked in zero gravity." -Brent Simon, The Space Camp Song

However, "Correct" pronunciation according to whom? We all have our dialects, of sorts. What is "Standard English" British English?

__________________
All moderations in purple.

You ain't nobody 'til you've been banned.

It doesn't really matter, you can say it however you want.

__________________
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek
"Carl Sagan sent a message to ET,
Neil Armstrong walked in the Sea of Tranquility
Steve Squyers built Spirit and Opportunity
Dan Haylen upchucked in zero gravity." -Brent Simon, The Space Camp Song

No, you can't. That's an awfully permissive attitude, and you don't mean it. You should say words in such a way that makes it possible for people to understand what you mean. If it's spelled "Luxury-Yacht," you should not pronounce it "Throat-Wobbler-Mangrove."

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Ahhhh but in this case, it is pronounced "Throat-Wobbler-Mangrove"!!!

Sorry, Gillian, I was trying to avoid a fight. I'm new here and don't want to make enemies. What does make pronunciation 'correct'?

__________________
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek
"Carl Sagan sent a message to ET,
Neil Armstrong walked in the Sea of Tranquility
Steve Squyers built Spirit and Opportunity
Dan Haylen upchucked in zero gravity." -Brent Simon, The Space Camp Song

A combination of origins and usage--spelling enters into it a bit, but far less in English than in, say, Spanish. (Hence "yacht" being pronouned "yaht.") However, the word is very plainly spelled "nuke-lee-ur," and there is nothing in its origins to suggest it should be "nuk-yuh-lur" instead.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

The Commission was pathetically underfunded, given an impossibly short amount of time for completion and never used their reluctantly granted power of subpoena. More time, energy and money was spent on Monica-Gate than investigating 9/11.

__________________
*

Similar clearance here I'm sure. What I've found is the head NucE won't tell you who made the power unit.

But there's always something called "20 questions".

And that's all I have to say about that...

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

The phrase is 'neither confirm nor deny' and it doesn't apply to powerplants, it applies to warheads. It's not that they don't know. It's that they won't say. duh.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel