It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Military photos of the Twin Towers

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


I know there is no EC-3, but there IS an E-3C, and an E-3D. The E-3D is the NATO variant that has the in flight refueling probe sticking off the nose, and the CFM-56 engines. The E-3C is the latest USAF variant that has new sensors added to the nose and around the cockpit, along with updates to the radar.

www.militaryaviation.eu...




posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Thanks for the post Zaphod but there is neither an EC-3 or an E-3C. There is an E-3 or E-3A which is the AWACS.

Thanks for the post.



John,

You should have done a little more research. There is a E-3C version.

www.zap16.com...

I noticed you did not comment on the NASA AVIRIS plane



[edit on 17-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Originally posted by Zaphod58





I know there is no EC-3, but there IS an E-3C, and an E-3D. The E-3D is the NATO variant that has the in flight refueling probe sticking off the nose, and the CFM-56 engines. The E-3C is the latest USAF variant that has new sensors added to the nose and around the cockpit, along with updates to the radar.



Thanks Zaphod, I stand corrected. Again!



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Originally posted by ULTIMA1





John,

You should have done a little more research. There is a E-3C version.

I noticed you did not comment on the NASA AVIRIS plane



Yep, got myself in the foot on that post. Ouch!

Was there a question pending on the NASA AVIRIS?

Thanks for the heads up.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Thanks Zaphod, I stand corrected. Again!


Looks like me and Zaphod posted at the same time.

I am still curious about the NASA aircraft with the AVIRIS system. I wondering why the EPA requested it from NASA to do thermal mapping of the hotspots. If their is not something more to why it was there.


[edit on 17-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Mirthful Me




Are you sure that's a military photo? What makes you think it is? What is an "EC-3 Recon?" Is it an aircraft? Did you do any due diligence regarding the photo?


Thanks for the post MM. A quick google search would have displayed
many entries and pictures of the Military EC-3 (Boeing 707) reconnaissance and the photo of the WTC and the circumstances under which it was photographed.


Can you guess by my questions that maybe you need to?


I would guess that you were among less than 2 ATS members that didn't know what an EC-3 was. But I could be wrong.


Nothing like an exercise in rhetorical questions.


Yes, you may have given your post a little more thought, I agree.


Woodcock Monkeys, not just for already knowing the answers anymore...



Yes and thank you very much for your interest and helpful hints.


John the EC-3, is actually a P-3 Orion, a four prop aircraft, not a Jet like the one shown cirlcling around the White House. Google search has shown nothing concerning the EC-3 that is not on a Conspiracy website. The only real tangible incident, is the Chinese Incident at the Begining of Bush's first Term. That was a P-3 Orion, one of its variants.

As far as the photo's being from Military sources, sure, maybe. Probably not. More than likely they are a comilation of many sources, ie Cops, Media, Ground People, Snoopers. I see no evidence save that last photo that these have anything to do with the military. That last photo looking down is something you would expect from a Recon Photo. Also something you would expect from many other sources as well. The military isnt the only organization that takes photos like this. And Im not refering to spook operations either. Civilians do this stuff as well.

Their really isnt any way you can confirm these are Factual Military photos.

Now the burning photos just reinforces that the heat generated was just too much for the buildings to take. If you know how they are constructed, you would know that once things got moving, the lower floors couldnt stop the crashing. Thier was little inside support for the floors people, the floors were supported by the outside frame. So it is very easily possible that the heat from the fire caused the buildings to collapse in just they way they did.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Actually, the electronic warfare variant of the Orion is the EP-3. There really is no such thing as an EC-3. If you have a variant of an airframe, such as the P-3 or the S-3 (just two examples) and they do electronic warfare, or reconnaissance then they simply add the letter for the mission in front of the designation. For EW it would be EP-3 and ES-3, IF there was a recon version of either it would be RP-3 or RS-3. The same for the RC-135. It was a C-135 airframe, designed to do the reconnaissance mission, hence the RC-135 designation.

[edit on 9/18/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by cbianchi513
Look for a future thread (when the time is near) from this poster entitled "2AR" (2nd American Revolution).


2AR user name doesn't exist??? Will he/she be joining soon?

2PacSade-



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I can tell you categorically that microwave surveillance is randomly conducted and that there are recordings of that day inside the buildings.

Good luck trying to get them! This from an Army captain.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Actually, the electronic warfare variant of the Orion is the EP-3. There really is no such thing as an EC-3.


As stated earlier i believe the EC-3 is for the type of collection and not an aircraft designation.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Excellent...


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As stated earlier i believe the EC-3 is for the type of collection and not an aircraft designation.


Then it will be no problem for you to document this with credible links.

I'll thank you in advance on behalf of all of us anxiously awaiting this clarification.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Excellent...
Then it will be no problem for you to document this with credible links.

I'll thank you in advance on behalf of all of us anxiously awaiting this clarification.


I will get you what i can. I have seen some intell that have EC numbers .

Also i believe NASA uses EC numbers on some of their photos.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join