Military planes in 911

What government documents have you got? That one is a College training information document that gives an outline of flight refuelling needs and methods IN WHICH THE VULCAN TANKER REQUIREMENT IS MERELY MENTIONED, Yet you are peddling it as if it is the official operational record.

If you take that as 'official' you are easily impressed.

If you have better proof show it, instead of this stupid circular argument. If you can prove my dates wrong, do so, with accurate dates and records.

You keep saying you are providing proof and yet you consistently provide nothing.

You are making the claim, so if my information AND that of the RAF Museum and Ministry of Defence (both better sources than your stupid college paper) are all wrong - show it.

Its time to put up or shut up.

Originally posted by waynos
Its time to put up or shut up.

I have followed this debate? from the outset.

I hoped to learn someting from it.

Waynos: Clearly you know of what you speak.

Ultima 1: Clearly you do not.

Your arguments are nothing but arguments nothing else. I appreciate your view point but give it up. If you have the credentials that you speak of, I wonder what your superiors would make of your stand? Are you sanctioned or is this just disinformation.

Originally posted by waynos
Its time to put up or shut up.

When i put up are you going to man enough to admit your wrong ?

Originally posted by Seeker PI

Ultima 1: Clearly you do not.

Yes i do know what i am talking about but i can not show a lot of sites and documents that i use. I doubt that poeple would admit it if i did show enough evidence.

I don't know what it would take for some people on here to admit that i proved something.


[edit on 2-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I don't know what it would take for some people on here to admit that i proved something.
[edit on 2-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

That is exactly the point.

Originally posted by brigand
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? If one was to conclude that the aircraft used in the attack were in fact military as opposed to commercial, how do you explain the people on those planes. I want to believe, but I need more evidence to convince me.

If the planes really were commercial, why then didn´t the relatives apply for compensation money?

www.wingtv.net...

"Of the 266 people that we were told died on these jets, only 11 relatives applied for compensation. Can you believe that not a single relative from Flight 93 applied for compensation? I can't."



And how come that the alleged planes were almost empty?

Only 26 passengers in the alleged Flight 93:

edition.cnn.com...




[edit on 2-4-2007 by Alive again]

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Alive again]

And the FACT is that NONE of the alleged Flights on 9/11 were IN TRAFFIC that day, they were NOT SCHEDULED according to official databases, which the 9/11-researcher Gerard Holmgren has exposed!!!

After he exposed it the BTS afterward doctored their database...

www.serendipity.li...


"As regards the planes, we must first note that the terms "AA 77", "UA 93", etc., do not denote planes, they denote flights. The statement "AA 77 hit the Pentagon" really means "the plane which departed (assuming it did) from Dulles Airport at 08:10 on 9/11 bound for Los Angeles hit the Pentagon."

The official story posits four planes, associated with four flight numbers, namely, AA 11, AA 77, UA 175 and UA 93. But we have no physical evidence of the existence of any of those four planes. According to the official story, the planes which departed as AA 11 and UA 175 completely disappeared as a result of the collapse of the Twin Towers, the plane which departed as AA 77 completely disappeared when it hit the Pentagon, and the plane which departed as UA 93 completely disappeared when it hit the ground at Shanksville. All four Boeing jets, big 757s and 767s, completely disappeared, with not one single piece of metal which can be proven to have come from any of those planes. Isn't this a bit odd?

So no physical evidence. But how about evidence from records of those flights? Records concerning domestic flights within the US are maintained online by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. When 9/11 researcher Gerard Holmgren checked those records he discovered that flights AA 11 and AA 77 were not scheduled to fly on 9/11. He published his discovery on 2003-11-13 and it was confirmed by others, including the author of this article (who saved the BTS web pages). Late in 2004 as Holmgren reports, BTS doctored their database so that now when one tries to confirm the original observation one reaches a web page (local copy here) stating:

On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight #11 and #77 and United Airlines #93 and #175 were hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, these flights are not included in the on-time summary statistics.

But there were originally records confirming that UA 93 and UA 175 departed (see the BTS web pages), so apparently these flights did exist. BTS removed those records to conceal the fact that there were never any records for AA 11 and AA 77.

If flights AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then there are only two planes, not four, to be accounted for. Investigators who have checked the tail numbers for the planes which departed as UA 93 and UA 175 on 9/11 (namely N591UA and N612UA respectively) believe that these planes are still in service. If so, and if AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then the number of Boeing 757s and 767s destroyed on 9/11 was not four, as the US government maintains, but rather zero."





[edit on 2-4-2007 by Alive again]

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Alive again]

And the FACT is that most of the alleged 9/11 PILOTS are STILL ALIVE:

www.democraticunderground.com...



Ever wondered who the alleged passengers in Flight 77 were?

killtown.911review.org...

Mainly just MILITARY PEOPLE...



Here is the list of the people who died INSIDE the Pentagon:

killtown.911review.org...

Were they SACRIFICED?



[edit on 2-4-2007 by Alive again]

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Alive again]

If they supposedly completely disappeared, why are there pictures of plane parts on the ground in NYC, the Pentagon, AND Shanksville? The fact is that there WAS debris from aircraft found at all three sites.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If they supposedly completely disappeared, why are there pictures of plane parts on the ground in NYC, the Pentagon, AND Shanksville? The fact is that there WAS debris from aircraft found at all three sites.

The problem is that there WAS NOT any debris found from any commercial airplanes!!!


Gerard Holmgren:

www.serendipity.li...

"But we have no physical evidence of the existence of any of those four planes. According to the official story, the planes which departed as AA 11 and UA 175 completely disappeared as a result of the collapse of the Twin Towers, the plane which departed as AA 77 completely disappeared when it hit the Pentagon, and the plane which departed as UA 93 completely disappeared when it hit the ground at Shanksville. All four Boeing jets, big 757s and 767s, completely disappeared, with not one single piece of metal which can be proven to have come from any of those planes. Isn't this a bit odd?"




[edit on 2-4-2007 by Alive again]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If they supposedly completely disappeared, why are there pictures of plane parts on the ground in NYC, the Pentagon, AND Shanksville? The fact is that there WAS debris from aircraft found at all three sites.

Do you also believe the CRAP about ONLY 26 alleged passengers in a coast-to-coast flight with a Jumbojet, Boeing 757?


And why an empty hole in the ground?


Do you even believe in Santa Claus?

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Alive again]

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Alive again]

Considering that a 757 ISN'T a jumbojet, and only holds AT MOST 235 passengers, yes, I can believe it. Especially if that plane was supposed to continue on as part of another flight and they had to get it to the West Coast.

It wasn't an empty hole in Shanksville. There was plenty of debris found in the hole, and there were pictures of it released.

Hey that's right, don't agree with someone? Insult them! Typical of most of these threads lately.

I don't understand why people like Ultima think that it wasn't hijacked commerical airliners that crashed into the WTC and the Pentagon. Millions of people have seen the US/United Airlines jets crash. Those weren't military planes. They don't need to be. Why go to the bother of using military planes and fake passenger lists, when you have a group of suicidal nutters prepared to fly and crash airliners for you? Thousands of relatives of the dead knew they were on those flights. Arguing that these people didin't exist is pretty insulting to them.

There can still be a government cover-up.
It works like this:
Muslim terrorists want to attack America. Their idea is to fly hijacked planes into famous landmarks.
Hawks in Washington want a new war. They just need someone to start it.

In effect, the CIA allowed the terrorists to attack America and possibly helped fund the attack via the Pakistani Secret Service, while also perhaps rigging the WTC with explosives to make the devastation that bit more palpable. (The boss of the Parkistani SiS - alleged to be the man who wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta 3 months before 911 - was having breakfast with the future boss of the CIA on the morning of 911, would you believe?)
All the passengers in the airliners and those killed at the Pentagon and in NYC were sacrifices. The hijackers got what they wanted (a wildly "successful" attack on America) and the Hawks got they wanted too. With the massive amount of outrage caused by the attack (mostly targeted at Muslims, rather than the Government - "Oh, they suffered losses at the Pentagon, you know") the CIA/Military got the new war they needed.

3000 cheap deaths in the US allowed multi-billion dollar industries (military, construction, oil) to prosper, thus meaning more campaign finance for the Republicans.
The bottom line is this: Bush's cronies needed a Pearl Harbour. The Islamic fundamentalists were crazy enough to supply it. The people who gained most are the ones running the companies and the government. The people who lost out are the innocent victims in the planes and on the ground, the troops now serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the general population who now lives in fear of anyone who doesn't declare themself a US Patriot.

When i put up are you going to man enough to admit your wrong ?

If it is genuine proof then yes. I always have in the past. If it can be shown that I have been following duff information then I would find that fascinating and would want to pursue it further myself.

The trouble is, you haven't. Read the sentence in that document you posted again, with an open mind, and see if you can tell why it does not prove something that isn't already well established as publicly known fact for 25 years.

Now, if it can be shown that a converted Vulcan actually refuelled something in the South Atlantic before June 14 1982, that would be different.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
Now, if it can be shown that a converted Vulcan actually refuelled something in the South Atlantic before June 14 1982, that would be different.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by waynos]

It might be hard to find an actual record, i mean your probly not going to find a record of the US. KC-135s from RAF Mildenhall that helped out with refueling in emergencies.

I have a message out to the researchers and analyst at NSA looking for some information to help me out.

I'm sure there must be some records somewhere, its just finding them I suppose.

Thing is, its not just a case you saying yes and me saying no, its that you are stating something that documented dates say is impossible.

Here's a theory I have fashioned to try to explain our impasse;

The requirement for Vulcan tankers ASAP was borne out of the Falklands, we are both agreed on that.

The news that Vulcan tankers were being pursued as an emergency measure was known, at least in military circles, by mid May at the very latest. Stationed at Alconbury, you would be well placed to pick up on this information.

I propose that it may be the case that 'tankers being converted' translated by word of mouth into them actually already being used while XH561 was actually still in bits in Manchester, thoudsands of miles from the conflict. Other sources of confusion may arise from the fact that 50 Sqn was part of the Black Buck detatchment on Ascension but only 44 Sqn aircraft actually flew the missions, 50 Sqn then seamlessly switched to the tanker role in mid June leading to the assumption that this was their role in the Falklands all along.

Plausible?

BTW, yes there were secrets. The use of KC-135's was kept a secret for years, but for obvious reasons. Secrecy and disinformation about converted Vulcans however makes no sense.
Indeed the presence of one or more Vulcan tankers might have provided a cover story for refuellings mysteriously taking place while every RAF Victor tanker was accounted for elsewhere. On second thoughts, maybe it did and this is what you were told at the time? Hmmm, I'll call that theory B.

If it helps here are the six K.2's, and what I know of them (yes, there are blanks at the moment)

XL445 - returned to woodford for conversion May 1982, delivered to 50 Sqn in July

XH560 - returned to woodford for conversion Jun1982, delivered to 50 Sqn in Aug

XH561 - returned to woodford for conversion May1982 (first one) flown 18 Jun, del to 50 Sqn 21 Jun, CA release 23 Jun

XJ825 - ?

XM571 - converted at Woodford during May 1982, returned to service late Jun with 50 Sqn

XH558 - ? (last surviving Vulcan in airworthy condition and due to fly on this years airshow circuit)

[edit on 3-4-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
The news that Vulcan tankers were being pursued as an emergency measure was known, at least in military circles, by mid May at the very latest. Stationed at Alconbury, you would be well placed to pick up on this information.

BTW, yes there were secrets. The use of KC-135's was kept a secret for years, but for obvious reasons. Secrecy and disinformation about converted Vulcans however makes no sense.

Stationed at Alconbry we heard a lot of things that were going on, and of course that was the only thing on TV for weeks.

We also suppiled some tools and parts to the British, like RAF Mildenhall we helped what we could (unofficialy of course) All of us stationed thier felt we had to help, specially when thier was a rumor going around that the Russians were helping and were going to take sides with Argentina.

Originally posted by artysmokes
I don't understand why people like Ultima think that it wasn't hijacked commerical airliners that crashed into the WTC and the Pentagon. Millions of people have seen the US/United Airlines jets crash. Those weren't military planes. They don't need to be. Why go to the bother of using military planes and fake passenger lists, when you have a group of suicidal nutters prepared to fly and crash airliners for you? Thousands of relatives of the dead knew they were on those flights. Arguing that these people didin't exist is pretty insulting to them.

There can still be a government cover-up.
It works like this:
Muslim terrorists want to attack America. Their idea is to fly hijacked planes into famous landmarks.
Hawks in Washington want a new war. They just need someone to start it.

In effect, the CIA allowed the terrorists to attack America and possibly helped fund the attack via the Pakistani Secret Service, while also perhaps rigging the WTC with explosives to make the devastation that bit more palpable. (The boss of the Parkistani SiS - alleged to be the man who wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta 3 months before 911 - was having breakfast with the future boss of the CIA on the morning of 911, would you believe?)
All the passengers in the airliners and those killed at the Pentagon and in NYC were sacrifices. The hijackers got what they wanted (a wildly "successful" attack on America) and the Hawks got they wanted too. With the massive amount of outrage caused by the attack (mostly targeted at Muslims, rather than the Government - "Oh, they suffered losses at the Pentagon, you know") the CIA/Military got the new war they needed.

3000 cheap deaths in the US allowed multi-billion dollar industries (military, construction, oil) to prosper, thus meaning more campaign finance for the Republicans.
The bottom line is this: Bush's cronies needed a Pearl Harbour. The Islamic fundamentalists were crazy enough to supply it. The people who gained most are the ones running the companies and the government. The people who lost out are the innocent victims in the planes and on the ground, the troops now serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the general population who now lives in fear of anyone who doesn't declare themself a US Patriot.

But what about the fact that the 4 fantasy-planes were not even scheduled to fly on 9/11?

www.serendipity.li...


And wow do you reconcile with the fact that the Pilots of the fantasy-planes are still alive and well?




[edit on 4-4-2007 by Alive again]

[edit on 4-4-2007 by Alive again]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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]

the rc135e was the only one of it's kind...and it "disappeared" between japan and alaska in '69...the NKC is a test bed...i believe there are only three of them....