Military planes in 911

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:



VC-10:




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.

[edit on 3/28/2007 by Zaphod58]

I hope this doesn't come across as condescending, but the way you appear to be misinterpreting what tankers carry ( as described accurately by zaphod) maybe I should point out that the drogue unit under the wings of (any) large tanker is basically a streamlined fairing over a hose drum unit (HDU) from which the reciever takes fuel. It serves no other purpose and certainly does not carry fuel itself, the HDU just pipes it from the fuselage tanks.

Therefore, if any of the planes used in the attacks were carrying underwing pods, they would have to be tankers. Nothing I have yet seen shows any such pods and so the whole theory seems baffling to me. What is the difficulty in accepting they were 'just' airliners?

Edited to add that the only RAF tankers ever to carry external tanks were the Valiant (retired 1964) and Victor (retired in the 1990's) . In both cases the external tanks were for the planes own use and not for transfer and were left over from their service days as V-bombers. Both these types were also much smaller than the VC-10 and cannot be mistaken for airliners due to their very distinctive design. No civil transport based tanker has required the use of external tanks because of the vast internal capacity already available, which is they are chosen as the basis for such types in the first place.

[edit on 28-3-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
I hope this doesn't come across as condescending, but the way you appear to be misinterpreting what tankers carry ( as described accurately by zaphod) maybe I should point out that the drogue unit under the wings of (any) large tanker is basically a streamlined fairing over a hose drum unit (HDU) from which the reciever takes fuel. It serves no other purpose and certainly does not carry fuel itself, the HDU just pipes it from the fuselage tanks.

[edit on 28-3-2007 by waynos]

Yes i know the difference between a drogue and a exterenal tank, i was a crew chief in the Air Force. I was simply proofing to zaphid who stated that no tankers carried wing tanks that he was wrong.

And thier are military and recon versions of the 757 and 767.

You haven't proven anything yet. You have STATED that they carry them, and I've shown pictures of what you're calling "external tanks" or "external stores pods". There are military versions of the 767 and 757, but they're not recon. Japan has the E-767 AWACS, and is getting the KC-767, Italy has the KC-767, and the US has the 757 that they use for VIP transports. Waynos and I have both stated and shown that they don't carry external stores, and all you have done is say that they carry them.

I'm still waiting for your first shred of proof.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
There are military versions of the 767 and 757, Waynos and I have both stated and shown that they don't carry external stores, and all you have done is say that they carry them.

I'm still waiting for your first shred of proof.

Most recon planes are able to carry pods, either ECM or recon pods.

You might want to try looking at the different versions of the KC-135. Try looking up a program called "Combat Sent" Its only 1 of a hundred recon programs.

Also planes that are in the J-STARS program. And the newest E-10.





[edit on 28-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Fairings are not the same as external tanks/pods. External tanks/pods are designed to be removed, where as fairings are built onto the airframe. It was stated earlier that they were FUEL TANKS, which large planes don't carry. And you stated there are recon 757 and 767s. The E-10 will be the ONE and ONLY recon 767, once it enters service in the next few years. And there will only be one of them as the Pentagon has effectively canceled the program, except as a technology demonstrator. And it won't enter service for AT LEAST another two years.

And I still haven't seen any evidence that UA175 was carrying anything. That centerline "pod" is the wingbox and wheel wells, and not a pod. There's nothing else on the plane in any of the pictures I've found that looks anything like a fairing OR a fuel tank.

The E-8 JSTARS and KC-135 are based on the common 707 type airframe, the E-10 is a paper proposal that has not flown, and now never will thanks to its cancellation last week. This plane was slated to fly in 2009/10.

How do you equate this with proof that there are recon 757's and 767's in service? A recon 707 is not 'proof' of a recon 757.

I was simply proofing to zaphid who stated that no tankers carried wing tanks that he was wrong.

But he was right! There are NO large jet transport based tankers with external wing tanks. Finding a picture of an A-6 or a C-130 doesn't prove it, they are utterly different. Talking about fuselage mounted ECM pods on JSTARS isn't proof either - because it is not what is being talked about - you cannot use a thing as proof of something completely different.

Finding a picture of the types we WERE talking about with wing tanks would be proof. What you offered was simply disingenuous.


[edit on 28-3-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
How do you equate this with proof that there are recon 757's and 767's in service?

Most recon planes are able to carry pods, either ECM or recon pods.

There are NO large jet transport based tankers with external wing tanks

Well i have to prove you wrong, the British Victor carried wing tanks and it was a large jet. Thats just 1 i can think of off hand, i could probly find more.



[edit on 28-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Most SMALLER recon aircraft, like the RF-4, or something similar do. The RC-135 carries FAIRINGS that have their electronics in them. Totally different from an external pod. NO RC-135 has EVER carried an external pod of ANY sort. Certainly not ECM. The RC-135 is designed to PURPOSELY get radar to target them, so that they could identify where it is located. Since they never fly into hostile territory they don't have any NEED for ECM. All their electronics are carried either internally or in the fairings on the fuselage.

Please! Find more! Prove it to us! Show us pictures of them carrying external tanks. And as for the Victor as Waynos said, it was originally a BOMBER that was converted to a tanker, and the external tanks were for ITS OWN USE, from when it was a bomber and needed the extra fuel.

[edit on 3/28/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Most SMALLER recon aircraft, like the RF-4, or something similar do.

And as for the Victor as Waynos said, it was originally a BOMBER that was converted to a tanker, and the external tanks were for ITS OWN USE, from when it was a bomber and needed the extra fuel.

[edit on 3/28/2007 by Zaphod58]

Yes i know waht the RF-4 can carry i was a Crew Chief on them.

But the point was they do carry external wing tanks, something you said no tanker carries, i was just proving a piont.

As far as photos of the pods on the other recon aircraft, i will have to see what i can find thats unclassified.

ell i have to prove you wrong, the British Victor carried wing tanks

I GAVE you the Victor earlier in the thread, can you tell me when the Handley page Victor was a commercial jet transport, you old wind up merchant?

Originally posted by waynos
I GAVE you the Victor earlier in the thread, can you tell me when the Handley page Victor was a commercial jet transport, you old wind up merchant?

POINT IS ITS A TANKER WITH EXTERNAL WING TANKS !!!!!!!

I guess now your going to say its not a tanker or it does not carry wing tanks.

[edit on 28-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 28-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes i know waht the RF-4 can carry i was a Crew Chief on them.

But the point was they do carry external wing tanks, something you said no tanker carries, i was just proving a piont.

As far as photos of the pods on the other recon aircraft, i will have to see what i can find thats unclassified.

And yet again, the argument is NOT whether or not the RF-4 can carry them, or other SMALL aircraft, but whether LARGE aircraft carry them. I spent 25 years on and around USAF flightlines, and my father spent almost FIFTY years working for the USAF in the military and as a civilian, and neither of us EVER saw an RC-135, KC-135, OR 757/767 carrying external pods. The closest we saw to them were the buddy pods they mounted on the wingtips of the KC-10s and some KC-135s.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The closest we saw to them were the buddy pods they mounted on the wingtips of the KC-10s and some KC-135s.

But the buddy pods are still pods. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again as stated earlier, most recon aircraft can carry external pods.

NO, Ultima, the point is you are splitting hairs.

We are discussing the planes that took part in 9/11. YOU are claiming that planes of the *same* type are used as recon aircraft (they are not) and that they can carry underwing fuel tanks (they cannot).

The fact that *other* planes, a third of the size, that were retired and scrapped long before 9/11 took place and which look NOTHING like the planes under discussion DID carry these tanks is OF NO CONSEQUENCE.

Either prove the existence of (a) recon 757's and 767's that actually exist or (B) Aircraft of either type with underwing tanks, or stop posting bollocks.

POINT IS ITS A TANKER WITH EXTERNAL WING TANKS !!!!!!!

I guess now your going to say its not a tanker or it does not carry wing tanks.

No, I'm going to point out that its a relatively small, converted bomber, which I told you yesterday. In discussions about what the aircraft used in 9/11 did/didn't/could have done it is a complete red herring.

Remember TANKERS BASED ON LARGE JET TRANSPORTS. it has been said often enough.

[We are discussing the planes that took part in 9/11. YOU are claiming that planes of the *same* type are used as recon aircraft (they are not) and that they can carry underwing fuel tanks (they cannot).


Well since we do not have the FBI or NTSB crime scene reports we do not know if what hit the towers were carrying anything.

Sice we have no videos, photos, or crime scne reports on what hit the Pentagon we do not know what it might have been or what it was carrying.

As stated thier are tankers that carry external fuel tanks and most recon planes can carry or be fitted to carry an external pod.

[edit on 28-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Well since we do not have the FBI or NTSB crime scene reports we do not know if what hit the towers were carrying anything.

Well, sadly, they were carrying passengers. The photos show nothing fitted externally. Internally is another matter, but if people want to believe in fantasies, its their prerogative.

Sice we have no videos, photos, or crime scne reports on what hit the Pentagon we do not know what it might have been or what it was carrying.

I have seen lots of excellent and concrete proof that it was an American Airlines Boeing 757. 80% of it is contained right here on this message board. However plenty of supposed 'investigative' minds on these boards have completely failed to see this. I guess people will only see what they want, fair enough, its their choice. I don't want to shatter anyone's wet dreams.

As stated thier are tankers that carry external fuel tanks and most recon planes can carry or be fitted to carry an external pod.

Yes there are and yes they can. However none of them are Boeing 757's or 767's and the Pentagon and the Towers sure as hell weren't hit by a Handley Page Victor or an RF-4.

Nuff said?

Originally posted by waynos
I have seen lots of excellent and concrete proof that it was an American Airlines Boeing 757. 80% of it is contained right here on this message board.

What concrete proof? Thier are no videos, photos, crime scene reports matching the parts found to a 757 let alone flight 77.

Originally posted by brigand
I've heard the argument that the planes used in 911 were in fact military aircraft. After seeing some of the close-up footage of tower 2, I tend to agree, but what I can't figure out is this. How can the government possibly cover up all of those passengers? Were they fabricated names? Were they real people that were murdered before the attack?

Could the passengers have bordered military aircraft in disguise ?
I don't subscribe to the idea that military planes were used on 9-11 but I do put forward a logical question to those who think otherwise.