egafd.com

What a load of ill informed crap that page is.

The so called "pod" can easily be seen on both sides of the aircraft on this photo:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0963368/M/
and here one each side are visible from the rear:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0163671/M/
it is also visible here:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0023472/M/

What you are seeing is nothing more than the fairing between the wing and fuselage in the centre tank/undercarriage well area.

However, there looks to have been a bit of post processing done - and done badly - on the stills.

Now to the text:

"We already have one Fox News employee making the statement that the plane had no passenger windows." Oh. yeh?

I've been watching airliners since I was 9 years old - 50 years this year. At that angle of bank (and I watched the footage on TV live and many times since) and at the distance the TV crews were from the WTC, no-one, unaided by binoculars or a telescope could have seen if the aircraft had windows or not. Further, it is very difficult to distinguish windows on some aircraft. The United paint scheme current at the time of 9/11 had a grey top and sides, including the window area. I have a mirror lens terrestrial telescope with a magnification range from 15 to 60. I've seen hundreds of United aircraft in the US and Europe.

Even on the ground, without any magnification, that scheme makes the windows difficult to distinguish at a distance. It is easier with magnification but the windows are not as distinctive as they would be if, for instance, they were set against white.

The piece goes on to talk about the 767 tanker. Boeing have built these for the Italian and Japanese Air Forces. The announced contract to lease 100 tankers for the USAF (WHICH DID NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL 2003) was cancelled due to allegations of bribery which forced a major resignation at Boeing. To date the USAF has NEVER operated any form of B767.

According to the piece, the 767 tanker would replace the KC130. Oh really??. There are tanker models of the LOCKHEED C130 Hercules known as the KC130 but the 767 tanker was meant, had it been built, to replace the BOEING KC135, a smaller version of the B707.

The photos of possible aircraft illustrating the 767 "tanker" are of 767 of either the JSDAF or the IAF, which has been airbrushed with 767 Tanker Transport titles for publicity purposes and of an E-8C which is a communications aircrat based on the much smaller B707 which has FOUR engines, for God's sake.


It's about time some of these people coming up with wild theories did some research before spouting out of their anuses about things they know nothing of.

Nice bit of "selective quoting" from you there, NandoRick!!

Robches,

FACTS, FACTS, FACTS.

Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal thus breaking international agreements. Britain and France needed the vital waterway back, with no charges and restrictions, to avoid the long haul around South Africa when servicing their interests in the Far East.

Britain and France persuaded Israel to launch a drive towards the Suez Canal with their army and landed paratroops themselves to attempt to reclaim control of the canal - not as you say to protect it.

There was no conspiracy, just a very open alliance with well declared war aims.

Bubo,

Do I take it that, in the La-La Land you seem to inhabit you have a scenario that military aircraft were used in place of the airliners and the airliners, their crews and passengers were somehow "disappeared"?

If they were, are they now dead - and if they are, were they executed or just gently put to sleep, or are they still alive, either as unwilling captives or are they heavily sedated but happy in a Nirvarna like existence?

Oh, and while I remember, that "767-like" USAF surveillence aircraft. Surely you haven't forgotten to dig out your sources, have you?

Mysteryman:


I said the aim of the British and French invasion of Egypt was to "protect" the Suez Canal; note the use of inverted commas.

The Suez Canal did not need protection, as it was not in danger. The plot hatched by Britain, France and Israel was to make it look as if the Canal was in danger, so Britain and France could seize control of it.

There was certainly no public alliance at the time with Israel, the meetings were carried out in strict secrecy. Most conspiracies do take place in secrecy, until they are found out. As I said, the ones you don't hear about are the ones that worked.

In those terms, every alliance which plans military action and meets behind closed doors must be classed as a conspiracy.

This sounds more like antagonism now, something that I'm not going to have any part in. But to answer your question, if 9/11 was a conspiracy, then I can't see why both the flights and the passengers weren't fictitious, as in made up, bogus, phoney, just like Hollywood writers and novelists make up fictitious stories and characters all the time. For example, do you know for sure that that stewardess who called her husband from the first plane actually existed? Or that the husband isn't just an actor working for the government? The same for all the people involved, either directly (the victims) or indirectly (the victims' families) with the airliners.

I know for sure that the aircraft rostered for all four flights that day have never been seen on the ground since they took off from their respective airports that morning.

I know for sure that a number of people (4) of my acquaintance had relatives booked on 2 of the flights and they have never been heard of since 9/11 and that includes a young child, with her mother, on her way to a special treat at Disney, something she had looked forward to for a long time.

What I don't know for sure is the extent, if any, of the culpability of the Bush administration. They are a pretty twisted lot and around 3,000 deaths is nothing in the scheme of things - let's face it, they and Blair sat on their hands for 6 weeks and watched around 1,000 people needlessly die in Lebanon and Northern Israel whilst we have all been enjoying the summer.

Whatever the truth, ask yourself this - assuming that the whole scenario of the flights, the crews and passengers are as you would have it (I'm stretching my mind here to even type this), i'e. they did not exist.

Who then did the conspirators employ to fly those aircraft that did cause so much destruction? What inducements were offered and how has the administration managed to cover up the massive organisation that would be necessary to launch such a scam, even from a military base?

Can we now return from the world of the X files and get back to some more plausible theories on why Osama fell out with Bush Mark One and his administration which led to the 1993 bombing and 9/11 and what twisted logic could use 9/11 to promote more death and destruction to keep the neocons happy, push up the oil price to the personal benefit of most of the main players and keep the orders flowing to the US 2defence" industry?

Bubo wrote:

>>>>


Tell us Bubo - do you still believe in Father Christmas?

Because in your attempt to come across all "open-minded" (as you claim above) you really are making a complete ass of yourself with statements like that.

>In those terms, every alliance which plans military action and meets behind closed doors must be classed as a conspiracy

Pretty much. If Britain, France and Israel conspired to attack Egypt and seize the Suez Canal, what else can you call it but a conspiracy?