Military planes in 911

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

There was a most excellent thread on this board that you cannot have missed. With that statement you have demonstrated that you wilfully ignore anything that doesn't fit with what you want to find. Wreckage recovered from the scene and photographed and catalogued CANNOT have come from anything BUT a 757.

However you have already demonstrated your own ignorance of the Boeing twin jets in this thread so how can you hope to make a judgement?

edit; here are two items that are *only* used on the Boeing 757;
'




and here is a piece of wreckage with a photofit below of where on the 757 it came from;





There are many more out there, despite claims to the contrary from various websites that have nothing to do with truth but everything to do with promoting their own agenda.

Now the hard core theorist will just say things like 'the pics were doctored' or 'the pieces were put there'. This is a standpoint from which NO truth will ever emerge because NO evidence will ever be good enough. A hopeless cause with a fixed mindset that is very far removed from denying ignorance.

I have no interest in going round in circles with such people, I only join in where I can see something that is clearly and obviously wrong. Like in this thread.

When it comes to denying ignorance, I have noticed all too often that addtional, factual, information which is offered that does not fit the pre-conceived theory is not used to further the knowledge base as a whole in order to move nearer to the truth, but is dismissed out of hand because it spoils the story.

Sad, very sad.




[edit on 29-3-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
edit; here are two items that are *only* used on the Boeing 757;
'

Well if you know anything about aircraft you should know that the wheel could be from other planes, the 757 is not the only plane that uses that type of wheel.

I still have not seen anything concrete that matches the engine parts found to a RB211.

By the way i found some commercial planes that have been modified to carry pods, ECM, recon, and weapons. I have some moreif you want to see them.

i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...

And here is information from PERISCOPE military database on RC-135 carrying pods.

www.militaryperiscope.com...

NKC-135A
Fitted with approximately 12,500 lb (5,670 kg) of electronic equipment internally and on two wing pylons. Principal system is the AN/ALT-40(V) airborne jammer simulator system (AJSS) covering 0.1-20 GHz (bands A-J); uses eight steerable antennas in four radomes under the fuselage. AN/ALR-75 radar r eceiver operates with OE-320/A direction-finding system in same bands. AN/ALE-43 chaff dispensers also fitted. Wing pylons carry "Tree-" series pods that can radiate at 1-MW.

RC-135E
One KC-135A reengined with JT3D-3B engines from commercial Boeing 707 . Military designation for engines is TF-33-PW-102. Forward fuselage encircled by fiberglass band and pods suspended under wing roots. [/e]



[edit on 29-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Oh dear. Your argument is so weak I can smell the desperation from here.

Lets recap and see why your 'rebuttal' is no such thing. In fact, let us illustrate why your rebuttal STRENGTHENS my case, rather than weakening it.

Point 1

the 757 is not the only plane that uses that type of wheel.

If you say so, how about you prove it with a picture of a different type of plane with the same wheel? However, even if you could show this it would be irrelevant to the main reason for denying it was a 757 in the first place *because*, as you seem to admit with that statement, the 757 DOES use this type of wheel. I thought one of the major points of your argument was that it was not a 757 that hit the Pentagon because the wreckage did not match and, on other threads that the damage appeared to be too small?

IF that wheel type is used on another type of aircraft, it is still going to be a 757 sized plane, because that is what the wheel was designed for.

IF therefore a 757 sized plane did hit the Pentagon, what would be the point in lieing about it( either a 757 or an A321 - it makes no essential difference)?

The argument appears to be about the Pentagon being hit by a smaller plane. If it was, then that wheel would not be there as you do not fit unnecessarily big and heavy wheels to your aeroplane, weight and efficiency is king.

Point 2

I still have not seen anything concrete that matches the engine parts found to a RB211.

Except that the items I showed specifically match the technical drawings for the RB 211-535. They are not just similar, they are identical in size, shape, weight and detail. Now, you may think that the parts in one engine look exactly like another, but they do not. Furthermore, again, these components would only appear in an engine of that specific size and thrust. This again point to AT THE VERY LEAST a 757-sized aircraft. The only other aeroplane in the world that uses the 535 is the Tupolev Tu 204, which is the same size as the 757 and carries the same number of passengers. Therefore, if you are right and it was not a 757, then it must have been a Tu 204 - such a conclusion would obviously be barking mad, so we are back to the 757.

Point 3

I see there is no denial then of the upper forward fuselage skin image.

Point 4

By the way i found some commercial planes that have been modified to carry pods, ECM, recon, and weapons. I have some moreif you want to see them.

Well, congratulations. Thank you for proving zaphods point for him.

Confused? Let me explain;

The Boeing 757 carries 200 passengers, the 767 is even bigger and carries even more, up to 350 in some versions. This is the class of plane we were talking about. In return you have come up with (pic1) a military conversion of the 50 seat Embraer 145, (pic 2) a military variant of the 30 passenger Swearingen Metro and (pic 3) a military model of the 8 seat (yes, EIGHT) Gates Learjet.

Looks like we were spot on about those BIG jets then. If you want more pictures of regional transports converted for military duties you should have asked me, I've got hundreds of them. But not one shwing a similarly configured 757 or 767. Now, why do you suppose that is?

Point 5

You are still banging on about those sodding C-135 variants, what is it about the phrase " variants of the 757 and 767" that you are struggling to understand? The C-135 is based on the 707, there were no 707's at 9/11. None, not one. ok?

Originally posted by waynos
Oh dear. Your argument is so weak I can smell the desperation from here.

Point 2
Except that the items I showed specifically match the technical drawings for the RB 211-535.

Well, congratulations. Thank you for proving zaphods point for him.

I think you need to read the post before going off on something that is not even close to what was being discussed. I never said that a 757 did not hit the Pentagoni am only try to find out what actullay did hit the Pentagon.

1. Please do some research on the type of wheel used by the 757 you will find the same type of wheel is used by other aircraft.

2. A drawing is not real evidence. So where is the NTSB reports that show the RB211 found at the Pentagon is from flight 77.

3. Zaphod said that no RC-135 carry pods,, i just proved that they do. It was stated that commercial transports modified for military use do not carry pods, i just proved they do.

What Zaphod said was that in MANY years of experience between him and his father he had never seen a large aircraft carrying pods, and that tankers, 767s, and 757s don't carry any type of pod but drogue pods for refueling. You found ONE RC-135 that carried them, and ONE NKC-135 that carried them. That's not the same as proving that anything else carries them, or that 757s, and 767s carry anything like them. And in fact you proved that if any of the planes on 9/11 DID have them it would have been so obvious that it wasn't funny.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And in fact you proved that if any of the planes on 9/11 DID have them it would have been so obvious that it wasn't funny.

I have been doing a lot of reseach, and i research anything that is debated.

But we still don't know what hit the Pentagon. Since we have not videos or photos of what hit the Pentagon. Also no NTSB reports of what hit the Pentagon.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Well, in reply;

The only reply you need to make with the wheel argument is a picture illustrating your claim and your reasons why you think it more likely that whatever type you come up with hit the Pentagon, rather than a 757. Like I said, the wheel is specifically tailored for size and weight distribution. If a plane as big as a 757 hit the building what is so hard to accept about it actually being a 757? If the argument is that the Pentagon was hit by a smaller plane (is that what you think? you seem reluctant to commit your thoughts in this area) thena wheel of that size disproves the theory immediately as any difference in size between aircraft sharing components like that is going to be very small.

I think a detailed Rolls Royce sourced drawing of one (and more) of their own components is acceptable as proof. I chose that illustration (from a web page) as the one which covered most general recognition features in as compact as possible a space to illustrate the point I was making. There are many many more and most of them are already on the net.

Well, I believe zaphod already conceded that particular point, but how does it change the position with the 757/767 models we are discussing? It was, after all, claimed that THESE aircraft carry pods and tanks and operate in the recon role. I didn't see you concede that point?

But you are conceding that the fuselage skin is real then?

Originally posted by waynos
Well, in reply;

Like I said, the wheel is specifically tailored for size and weight distribution. But you are conceding that the fuselage skin is real then?

Actually the wheel is a common wheel on the 757. The 777 has a special made wheel.

www.janes.com...

Each main unit carries a four-wheel bogie, fitted with Dunlop or Goodrich wheels, carbon brakes and tyres. Twin-wheel nose unit, also with Dunlop or Goodrich tyres.

I do not know what hit the Pentagon thats why i am doing research.

What you should be asking is why is there only a pic of one wheel?

Where are the rest of them, should be 9?

With only one wheel it opens up the possibility that it was planted, along with all the other small parts found.

I still want to know where the engines are. Again only one rotor hub?
Should be around 20 of them. Also no rotor shafts? Only a part of the engine (combustion) casing? Where are the rest of the engine parts?

Aerospaceweb.org did an excellent page about the wheel hub.

This investigation indicates that the only wheel matching that found at the Pentagon is the main gear wheel of a Boeing 757-200, the same model as American Airlines Flight 77. The key features of the wreckage--including the number, size, and shape of the cutouts and bolt attachments--perfectly match those found in a main landing gear wheel of a Boeing 757-200, as illustrated in the above comparison. None of the wheels of the Global Hawk, A-3, or 737 match the debris, which is not surprising since all of these aircraft weigh considerably less than the 757 and use correspondingly smaller wheels of differing design.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

You're right Ultima, the wheel is common on the 757. It's commonly used on 757-200s and that's about all.

As for why there's only one, there's only one that we've seen pictures of. Doesn't mean that there weren't more there.

Well then what we should both be looking for ultima is the Dunlop or Goodrich information on the limits for this wheel type and what aircraft\ it is specified for or used on. That would be a good start wouldn't it? I'm willing to have a look. Then at least you know the size range that is possible. It might not give a firm answer but it would validate the question.

The need to validate the question being, in my view, "is there a sufficient differential in possible aircraft size to make lying about what type hit likely or even worthwhile?"

Anok, maybe the parts were destroyed? You know like much of the rest of the airframe? The reason why only one wheel and one engine survived may be similar to why you sometimes get large bone fragments left after a cremation. There is nothing hard to believe about so little evidence surviving.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You're right Ultima, the wheel is common on the 757. It's commonly used on 757-200s and that's about all.

Then i gues all the site are wrong about the 737 wheel being the same type.

The wheel hub is NOT the same on a 737, which you would have seen if you bothered to read the aerospaceweb page that I linked. They looked at the 737 and found several discrepancies between the hub at the Pentagon and a 737 hub. It LOOKS similar to it, but it has several differences that don't match up to what was found at the Pentagon.

Still more have speculated that the Pentagon was indeed struck by an airliner but one smaller than the 757. The candidate most often mentioned is the Boeing 737. The 737 is an extremely successful commercial airline model that has been built in several different versions. A review of 737 landing gear photos has revealed a variety of different wheel designs dictated by the varying sizes and weights of each model. Several of these wheel configurations are shown below.

Although the investigation is complicated by the presence of a hubcap used on the outboard main gear, it is apparent that none of these designs matches that found on the Pentagon wheel. The closest match is the 737-200 main gear wheel shown in the lower right corner. This wheel appears to share eight cutouts and 16 bolt holes along the circumference like that found in the wreckage. However, the shape of the cutouts is much more circular and the region around the central hub is completely different. None of the 737 wheels are a good match for the Pentagon wheel.

www.aerospaceweb.org...




[edit on 3/29/2007 by Zaphod58]

found the goodrich page already and guess what *if* the 757 wheel is used on anything else then it has to be a *bigger* type as the 737 (aka the next one down) uses a different wheel of smaller design.

Here's the blurb from the site;

"Goodrich Commercial Aircraft Wheels & Brakes manufactures steel and carbon brakes which are certified on Boeing and Airbus aircraft. In fact, we have taken the leadership role and introduced two innovative breakthroughs to the Carbon Brake market, DURA-CARB® carbon material and EDL® heat sink configurations. We plan for our customers' future needs by making major investments in state-of-the-art carbon processing facilities around the world."

So thats Boeing and Airbus. Therefore, if an airliner definitelty struck the pentagon, what possible reason could there be for lying about what type it was?

Also, here is the screen grab from the Dunlop page, again its 757's and bigger models plus the 737 which has smaller wheels)



You only have to look at a 737 wheel and a 757 wheel to see they are different, but again, what difference does it make?

If the argument is a military jet like a global Hawk or such is being passed off as a 757 then I can see the conspiracy argument, however why would it matter if it might have been a 737 rather than a 757?



[edit on 29-3-2007 by waynos]

So exactly where on the blurb does it state that the 737 wheel is smaller then the 757 wheel? The only difference is the 737 has a hub cap, but its the same type of wheel. The 757 anbd 737 use either the Dunlop or Goodrich wheel.
```````````````
removed quote of post directly above

[edit on 29/3/07 by masqua]

[edit on 29-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Where did I say it did? Nowhere is where.

I was stating that the wheel is obviously different. would you like me to post those pictures or do you think you might drag yourself across to the aerospaceweb link under your own steam? You don't seem very active in this 'research' you keep boasting about.

How long have you been questioning the provenance of the 757 wheel? It took me five seconds to find that information.

Originally posted by waynos
How long have you been questioning the provenance of the 757 wheel? It took me five seconds to find that information.

It took me 2 seconds to learn that the 757 and 737 use either the Dunlop or Goodrich wheel.



[edit on 29-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I'm not petty enough to correct your nomenclature but I am petty enough to point out that if you had spent more than two seconds on it you might not need correcting now.

Have you actuqally looked at the wheel illustrations you have been directed towards or are you just arguing for the sake of it now?

The spirit of co-operation I offered a few posts back didn't go very far did it? Are you seriously trying to find answers or are you just an 'againster'?

Originally posted by waynos
I'm not petty enough to correct your nomenclature but I am petty enough to point out that if you had spent more than two seconds on it you might not need correcting now.

I have spent over a year researching on government and professional sites. It only took me 2 seconds to realize the wheels for the 737 and 757 are the same type.

Maybe if you could get into a real site like www.militaryperiscope.com...

They use *A* Goodrich or Dunlop tire. A lots of planes use Goodrich or Dunlop tires. But that doesn't make them the same tire.