Military planes in 911

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? 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.

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? 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.

Pretty simple, the remains and what was left of bodies were flown to Dover AFB where they were IDed. Nothing states that the remains or bodies were in the buildings.

Let's say they were military planes. Heck, from the video I saw, i'm compelled to think that they were.. Surely, if they were military planes, putting people on them would serve no purpose and furthermore would beg the question of why military planes were used in the first place. So, my question is this... If they were military planes, what happened to the people that were suppose to be on the commercial flights?

I say they were military planes because of the huge fuel / navigation system on the bottom of the plane and the lack of any type of markings. Also, it would seem that the planes were olive drab green and didn't seem to have any windows outside of the pilot's cockpit.

There are pictures of the United flight that hit the building where you can see different colors on the plane, and you can barely make out the airline symbol on the tail. As for the "navigation bubbles" on the bottom, those are the wheel wells. Navigation antennas are usually placed on TOP of the fuselage.

This is one of the best pictures of the "mystery" plane that was United 175. You can see the colors match United's paint scheme of that time. Dark belly and tail, lighter on top. You can even see on the tail that there's a symbol painted at the same spot where the United symbol is.



Here's another one:



That doesn't look olive green to me. As for the windows, unless the sun is reflecting off them they are VERY hard to see from a distance. Here's a picture seen from close up to a United plane on take off, at high resolution from a digital camera. If it's that hard to see them from a still photo, how much harder to see them from a video camera, far away, that's relatively low resolution.

I've heard many conflicting things as to weather it was military aircraft or commercial jets.

the best source I've found so far for anything on 9/11 is this website.



www.question911.com



Check it out, and watch the film "Loose Change". That might answer some of your questions.

never mind, sry...

[edit on 26/3/2007 by ANOK]

Yeah, I'm on the fence on this.. I've seen good stuff from both sides, but the one thing I can't figure out if they were military planes is what happened to all the people that were suppose to be on the commercial planes? Thats the most convincing argument that they were in fact commercial airliners. But, as for the navigation system, many military planes mount nav gear and or an external fuel tank under the plane (it looks like a bomb). Some of the pics I've seen looked like there was such a tank, but the photos were too blurry to say for sure. The pics you showed me look like a commercial plane, but I am always weary of stuff like this.. especially when we don't know who doctored the photograph before uploading it.

There is no such thing as an external fuel tank for any large aircraft. The simple fact is that they don't NEED them. I've launched KC-135s with 200,000+ pounds of fuel onboard. (1 gallon of JP-8 weighs 6.8 pounds) What possible reason would they need an external fuel tank. As for navigation equipment, they mount comm antennas down below the belly of the plane, but the navigation antennas are on top, since many of them use astral fixes or sattelites to position fix. It's hard to get an astral fix when your antenna is looking down.

[edit on 3/27/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
There is no such thing as an external fuel tank for any large aircraft.
[edit on 3/27/2007 by Zaphod58]

You might want to look at planes like the C-130, B-52 and several fuel tankers carry external wing tanks.

[edit on 27-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Those are the only two that use them, and I wouldn't call the C-130 large. However, I concede the point that there are TWO that use them. However, there aren't any used on anything like a 767 or any type of tanker. The only transport type aircraft that uses them is the C-130. NO other modern transport or tanker (with the exception of the KC-130, which of course is a C-130) has EVER used an external fuel tank that I have ever seen. A 767 type plane would have had to have the wings restressed, and they would HAVE to be mounted on the wings. There is no way they could mount anything in a centerline position because the wheel well doors wouldn't open if there was.

Those "external wing tanks" that you're talking about on tankers are drogues to refuel the US Navy/Marine fighters. They're not fuel tanks. The KC-130 uses external tanks, but the USAF doesn't on the KC-135 or KC-10.


Edit to add pics of the drogue pods:





[edit on 3/27/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
NO other modern transport or tanker (with the exception of the KC-130, which of course is a C-130) has EVER used an external fuel tank that I have ever seen.

Those "external wing tanks" that you're talking about on tankers are drogues to refuel the US Navy/Marine fighters. They're not fuel tanks. The KC-130 uses external tanks, but the USAF doesn't on the KC-135 or KC-10.


[edit on 3/27/2007 by Zaphod58]

I guess you never saw a KA-6 tanker that carries external tanks besides the drogues.
www.yellowairplane.com...

Thier are also recon aircraft that carry an external or built in pod.




[edit on 27-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

You're kidding right? Of COURSE the KA-6 carries external fuel tanks. It's an ATTACK plane. What does that have to do with BIG planes? Those were buddy pods that the Navy uses all the time, on FIGHTERS and ATTACK planes. That doesn't make them a "big" plane. We're talking 767 sized planes here, and a KA-6 doesn't even come close to that size.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You're kidding right? Of COURSE the KA-6 carries external fuel tanks. It's an ATTACK plane. What does that have to do with BIG planes? Those were buddy pods that the Navy uses all the time, on FIGHTERS and ATTACK planes. That doesn't make them a "big" plane. We're talking 767 sized planes here, and a KA-6 doesn't even come close to that size.

I was just showing you that planes carry external fuel tanks, not just the drouges.

Thier are RC-135, 757 and 767 recon aircraft that carry external or buit in pods.

Oh really? I've seen them carry ECM pods on NKC-135s, but I've NEVER seen any of them carry external fuel tanks, or anything that looks like a bomb, as was said in the earlier post. And for you to be able to see a pod at the range we were seeing on the videos it would have to be something like an A-10 external fuel tank, and it would have to be carried on the wings. I've NEVER seen an ECM pod, or any other kind of pod carried that's that big, and I've NEVER seen a 757 or 767 carrying them. Or an RC-135 for that matter. All their equipment was built onto the fuselage or carried internally, not hanging out all over the wings.

This is news to my father as well that they carry them. He spent almost 50 years between his USAF and civilian career working on planes for the military, and he never saw an RC-135, 767, or 757 carry an external pod. And the USAF doesn't even HAVE 767s yet. They have a few 757s but they're all VIP transports and have no reason to carry ANYTHING externally.

[edit on 3/27/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I was just showing you that planes carry external fuel tanks, not just the drouges.

Thier are RC-135, 757 and 767 recon aircraft that carry external or buit in pods.

And for the record, you might want to learn to read. I said that the USAF tankers never used external fuel tank type stores. They only used drogue pods, and that with the exception of those pods, and the B-52/C-130, big planes don't carry external fuel tanks. I NEVER said that planes don't carry anything but drogue pods. And please, show me your recon 757s and 767s, because I've never heard anything about them, and can't find a damn thing about them anywhere.

Also, it would seem that the planes were olive drab green and didn't seem to have any windows outside of the pilot's cockpit.

May I ask where it would seem so? The pictures posted by zaphod quite obviously show a United Airlines Boeing 767, you can see the livery and the tail logo quite clearly.

Having read further down the thread, and I'm no expert on 9/11 theories - but I know a fair bit about planes, the A-6 needs the external tanks because it is a small attack aircraft. A C-130 is actually about 1/3 the size of a 767 class aeroplane so cannot be considered large. Oh, and there are no reconaissance models of either the 757 or 767 in service anywhere. The only military 767's are the KC-767's of Japan and Italy, and they sure as hell can't spare any for flying into buildings willy nilly.

The picture reproduced above also does not even show any externals on the aircraft, so, sorry if I missed it, but where did this come into the discussion?

Originally posted by waynos
Having read further down the thread, and I'm no expert on 9/11 theories - but I know a fair bit about planes, the A-6 needs the external tanks because it is a small attack aircraft. A C-130 is actually about 1/3 the size of a 767 class aeroplane so cannot be considered large. Oh, and there are no reconaissance models of either the 757 or 767 in service anywhere. The only military 767's are the KC-767's of Japan and Italy, and they sure as hell can't spare any for flying into buildings willy nilly.

The picture reproduced above also does not even show any externals on the aircraft, so, sorry if I missed it, but where did this come into the discussion?

Well it was stated that the planes only had drouges and did not carry external fuel tank, So i showed a plane with external tanks and drouges.

Those "external wing tanks" that you're talking about on tankers are drogues to refuel the US Navy/Marine fighters. They're not fuel tanks.

It was stated that the USAF tankers don't carry external tanks, only drogues. No USAF large plane, other than the B-52 that I or my father has ever seen or worked on has ever carried any external fuel tanks. I never said anywhere that no planes carry external fuel tanks.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It was stated that the USAF tankers don't carry external tanks, only drogues. No USAF large plane, other than the B-52 that I or my father has ever seen or worked on has ever carried any external fuel tanks. I never said anywhere that no planes carry external fuel tanks.

I like how you say USAF tankers because you must know that British tankers do carry external tanks.

And thier is still the point of planes that carry external or internal pods.