9/11 Radar Tracking

Another commercial jet modified for military recon.

737-700 AEWC
www.boeing.com...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But the point was that the 757 does not have a special wheel. Thier are other planes that use that type of wheel.

Check out what type of wheel the following planes use. If we knew what size the wheel and tire was at the Pentagon then we would know what plane it was from.

I wonder if these planes use Dunlop or Goodrich wheels, just a few off the top of my head.

Airbus A-310
ATR-42
Boeing 727
Boeing 737
BAC-111
BAE-125 / Hawker 800

[edit on 30-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Show me pictures that ANY of those wheels match the 757. Just because they use Dunlop or Goodrich wheels doesn't mean they're the same wheel as a 757. Using a wheel from the same manufacturer doesn't make it the same wheel.

As for your 737-AEWC as waynos pointed out in the other thread, AEWC is NOT recon. It's the same thing as the E-3 AWACS. It's a radar control plane.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Show me pictures that ANY of those wheels match the 757. Just because they use Dunlop or Goodrich wheels doesn't mean they're the same wheel as a 757. Using a wheel from the same manufacturer doesn't make it the same wheel.

As for your 737-AEWC as waynos pointed out in the other thread, AEWC is NOT recon. It's the same thing as the E-3 AWACS. It's a radar control plane.

Since we do not know what size wheel is at the Pentagon any of those could match.

As stated earlier and i will state it again, the AEWC od AWACS can be set up for recon. How many more times do i have to post facts and photos.

Do you know of the Combat Sent program ?????

I give up. You clearly can't see that none of the other wheels that were compared to a 757 match ONLY to it. Show me the three cutouts that are found on the 737 on the one at the Pentagon. Or show me how that wheel matches to any of the others on the aerospaceweb page.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I give up. You clearly can't see that none of the other wheels that were compared to a 757 match ONLY to it. Show me the three cutouts that are found on the 737 on the one at the Pentagon. Or show me how that wheel matches to any of the others on the aerospaceweb page.

Photo of 727 main wheel. from 727.assintel.com.br...
727.assintel.com.br...

I will be posting more photos of wheels of the same type as on the 757 to show they are close in apperence.

Please show me where it states in Janes that the 737 does not use a Dunlop or Goodrich wheel.

It doesn't. I never said it did.

Yes, thank you for agreeeing with me that other planes use that type of wheel.

No he didn't, he agreed that other planes use those makes of wheel, which has never been disputed in this thread. Different types of wheel from the same maker. Understand? Or do you need it making even simpler?

I was debating the statment that the 757 wheel was a custom "wheel" only made for that plane, i was showing that the 757 is a common "wheel" and used on other aircraft.

You are making the same point i was making that Dunlop and Goodrich "wheels" are used on more then just a 757.

The 757 uses a Dunlop or Goodrich wheel, the 737 uses the same type of wheel.

I have been very patient with you, but in that statement you are clearly showing yourself to either be unredeemably stupid, or a deliberate troll. You are demonstrating the lowest ability to analyse *anything* that I have ever come across. There is no way on earth that you have genuinely misunderstood what has been said to you.

Goodrich and Dunlop supply a particular type of wheel that is used on the 737, those two same companies also supply a different type of wheel for the 757 which is of different design.

There is no easier way to put it.

But the point was that the 757 does not have a special wheel. Thier are other planes that use that type of wheel.

No, YOU claimed that. I, for one, gave you the benefit of the doubt. Then I looked at the wheel manufactureres websites and found it not to be the case.
You are now splitting hairs in every direction to try to get some credibility back. Newsflash, you're only making things worse with this puerile argument.

I really didn't want to waste any more time on this but I went through the Janes specs for Boeing and Airbus transports and there is NO match for the dimensions of the 757 wheel on any other airliner. The wheel is definitely, completely, unique. Go check if you don't believe me.

Now I have firmly established that the 757 wheel is unique, and that the hub at the Pentagon only matches with a 757 hub, that puts the lid on it. The wheels supplied by goodrich and dunlop for other aircraft are of a different size and type.

I wonder if these planes use Dunlop or Goodrich wheels, just a few off the top of my head.

Airbus A-310
ATR-42
Boeing 727
Boeing 737
BAC-111
BAE-125 / Hawker 80

Off that list, even if they are supplied by these companies, and there is EVERY chance that they are, only the 727 and A310 might have used the same wheel but I have checked their specs in Janes and they don't.

How many more times do i have to post facts

Once would be nice

I will be posting more photos of wheels of the same type as on the 757 to show they are close in apperence.

You don't get it do you. 'close' doesn't cut it. All airliner wheels are 'close' in appearance. You either have the powers of observation to spot the differences or you don't.

The pentagon wheel is identical. 'Close' is nowhere.

AEWC od AWACS can be set up for recon.

So, you can tell from a photo what mission a plane is set up for but you can't identify two different objects from photographs? You did clearly state it was a civil jet moified for recon. Your argument is a mess ultima.

[edit on 30-3-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos

You don't get it do you. 'close' doesn't cut it. All airliner wheels are 'close' in appearance. You either have the powers of observation to spot the differences or you don't.

So, you can tell from a photo what mission a plane is set up for but you can't identify two different objects from photographs? You did clearly state it was a civil jet moified for recon. Your argument is a mess ultima.

[edit on 30-3-2007 by waynos]

So please tell me the size tire and wheel in the photo at the Pentagon. I agree close is not good enough we need to know what exact wheel it is and if it was from flight 77 a 757. Please show me hard evidence that the wheel in the photo has been proven to be from a 757, and not a drawing, actual evidence.

The 737 is a civil jet. The 737-700 AEWC is a modified civilain jet conferted to do AEWC. As stated a AWEC aircraft can be set up to do recon also.


[edit on 30-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

So please tell me the size tire and wheel in the photo at the Pentagon.

You're like a broken record. We don't have the specific tyre size. It might be there but he point is, for this identification, you don't NEED it. The visual evidence is enough. Look at the pictures I posted on the other thread.

The 737 is a civil jet. The 737-700 AEWC is a modified civilain jet conferted to do AEWC. As stated a AWEC aircraft can be set up to do recon also.

The actual POINT being? Nobody raised the question of what 737's are used for. We KNOW this stuff. stop trying to derail the argument and stick to the topic. The BIG Boeings, not the little ones.

If you are saying the existence of recon 737's proves the existence of recon 757's and 767's, there is no logic to this.

I am saying there are no recon 757 or 767 models flying anywhere, with external pods or tanks (that was your claim remember) because I KNOW THIS TO BE THE TRUTH. You, on the other hand are merely speculating.

If you want proof, how about I just post pictures of podless and tankless 767's all day, because that would be useful, wouldn't it.

Originally posted by waynos
The actual POINT being? Nobody raised the question of what 737's are used for. We KNOW this stuff. stop trying to derail the argument and stick to the topic. The BIG Boeings, not the little ones.

My point was that someone said thier was no commnercial jets that were modified for recon. I think i have proved that point wrong. But if need to i can provide more proof. I have psoted photos and am workingon more photos so i can prove beyong a doubt.

*sigh* NO NO NO!

All that was said was in relation to these two types of Boeing and then specifically to the issue of external attachments which you yourself postulated.

Civil airframes are used for military duties all over the world. I even told you myself about the RNZAF 757 at waddington which has not been converted and is a standard -200 model in every way. Get it through your skull.

*OTHER CIVIL TYPES PROVE NOTHING ABOUT THESE TWO PARTICULAR TYPES*

GOD! you are hard work to get through to.

No, we said there are no 757s or 767s that carry pods or external fuel tanks, that were modified for recon. The RC-135 is based on early 707s which were commercial planes.

Originally posted by waynos
*sigh* NO NO NO!
All that was said was in relation to these two types of Boeing and then specifically to the issue of external attachments which you yourself postulated.

I hate to go back and get the psot that stated that no commercial jets were set up as tankers or recon.

Originally posted by waynos
*sigh* NO NO NO!
All that was said was in relation to these two types of Boeing and then specifically to the issue of external attachments which you yourself postulated.

I hate to go back and get the post that stated that no commercial jets were set up as tankers, or that tankers did not have external wing tanks. Also that no commercial jet was set up for recon with pods.

I have proven most of those and am still in the process of proving more.




[edit on 30-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Please do. I'd like to see where I said that. In fact *I* even showed you a picture of the L1011 tanker that the RAF uses! So unless the L1011 isn't a commercial plane then I think I proved you wrong PDQ already! And they DON'T carry wing tanks! A drogue pod is NOT a tank. A wing tank carries FUEL, a drogue pod transfers fuel from the inwing tanks through a hose to the receiver.

Let me save you the trouble in fact.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They carry the same drogue pods that the USAF puts on their planes. The used L1011 tankers, and VC-10s primarily, and they did NOT carry external fuel tanks. The only RAF tanker that might have had external fuel pods was the Victor, which IIRC has been retired. (And no I'm not talking about a Tornado or other attack aircraft with external fuel tanks and a buddy pod.) You need to learn to tell the difference between an external tank and a drogue pod. Not to mention why would they use RAF tankers for the 9/11 attacks?

L1011 tanker:

external image

VC-10:

external image


I STILL haven't claimed that planes DON'T carry them. I've claimed that BIG PLANES, of which the ones on 9/11 obviously were, unless you're suggesting they were KA-6s or something smaller disguised as 767s. Stop trying to make it seem like I'm saying planes don't carry external pods, because I NEVER said they don't. I said that planes the size of 767s, with the exception of the B-52, and small drogue pods on the wingtips of tankers, don't carry them.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 3/30/2007 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 3/30/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And they DON'T carry wing tanks! A drogue pod is NOT a tank. A wing tank carries FUEL, a drogue pod transfers fuel from the inwing tanks through a hose to the receiver.


I STILL haven't claimed that planes DON'T carry them. I've claimed that BIG PLANES, of which the ones on 9/11 obviously were, unless you're suggesting they were KA-6s or something smaller disguised as 767s. Stop trying to make it seem like I'm saying planes don't carry external pods, because I NEVER said they don't. I said that planes the size of 767s, with the exception of the B-52, and small drogue pods on the wingtips of tankers, don't carry them.

1. What about the British Victor (A LARGE PLANE),it has wing tanks , and they are not drogues. The wing tanks are inboard of the Drogues,, Do you need a photo? I can find more large tankers that cary wing tanks.

2. Do you want to bet money on the fact that you did say that RC-135s do not carry pods?

I have proven that some RC-135s (A LARGE PLANE) do carry pods. Do you need me to post the information again?


[edit on 30-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Zaphod, you went and climbed back on the roundabout!

But before I leave this one, Ultima, I just want to point out the utter stupidity that you are now displaying.

In you quest to prove that large transports, when used as tankers, carry wing tanks you are quoting the Handley page Victor. A BOMBER (never a transport) with a span and length of about 100ft (NOT large, compare those figures with a 767)

And I admitted that THAT ONE MODEL of the RC and the NKC carried pods. And the Victor is the ONLY one that carried them, because it was a converted BOMBER.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And I admitted that THAT ONE MODEL of the RC and the NKC carried pods. And the Victor is the ONLY one that carried them, because it was a converted BOMBER.

BUT THE POINT IS I PROVED THAT LARGE TANKERS CAN CARRY WING TANKS AND THAT RC-135 AND OTHER RECON PLANES CAN CARRY PODS.



[edit on 30-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Well whoopy doo! Have a biscuit.

You proved something that was never in doubt in the first place and which nobody argued against but which I personally told you about (the Victor and its tanks).

What an achievement!