Merged Abolute proof UAL 175 never struck WTC tower 2

[Reheat]

Now calling Beachnut. Now calling... YIKES!!!!

That's pretty audacious, a RAT calling someone a goat!

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Just PM'd Darth Rotor re: the no-comms triangle flight pattern thing. He used to be an OS, although he did Awfully Slow Warfare with helos IIRC.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

That's pretty audacious, a RAT calling someone a goat!

<-- Skunk! I iz uh skunk!!!

... well, at least until I get sick of this avatar. Then maybe I'll change it back to the bunny. Or, I got a couple of good Daffy Duck jpgs socked away somewheres. Anyway, who are you to talk? You're a model airplane!!

 

[Reheat]

:Anyway, who are you to talk? You're a model airplane!!

Hey now, that's the real deal. Can't you see the vapor trails? Can't you hear the heavy breathing? Can't you feel the sweat? Can't you smell the...uh....uh...flatus?

You're just a cartoon so anything you say is automatically fiction.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Is that an EF-111, by the way? It's a little hard to tell in a pic that small if the wings are variable-geometry or not. I figured it's either that or one of the delta-wing Eurofighters...then again the cockpit looks all wrong to be one of those.

Man, I miss having unrestricted access to the honkin' big Jane's manuals.

 

[TJM]

Is that an EF-111, by the way? It's a little hard to tell in a pic that small if the wings are variable-geometry or not. I figured it's either that or one of the delta-wing Eurofighters...then again the cockpit looks all wrong to be one of those.

Man, I miss having unrestricted access to the honkin' big Jane's manuals.

F-106 perhaps?

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Uh-uh. Wings, intakes and cockpit shape are all wrong. Looking at photos of the F-111 I'm convinced that's what it is. I thought SU-24 for a minute, but the intakes are wrong for the Fencer as well. With the wings swept all the way back it looks a lot like the SU-24 but notice the prominent rectangular intakes just forward of the wings. Plus the Fencer's cockpit is a little too boxy on the underside.

 

[TJM]

Uh-uh. Wings, intakes and cockpit shape are all wrong. Looking at photos of the F-111 I'm convinced that's what it is. I thought SU-24 for a minute, but the intakes are wrong for the Fencer as well. With the wings swept all the way back it looks a lot like the SU-24 but notice the prominent rectangular intakes just forward of the wings. Plus the Fencer's cockpit is a little too boxy on the underside.

[qimg]http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/04.PAAvtnArt/PAShowScans/LateAdditions10/Fencer2.gif[/qimg]

Apologies oh High Priest, It appears that you are correct. I will sacrifice a dozen assorted at the alter and beg forgiveness, hallowed be thy name.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Today only we're accepting green beer in lieu of donut sacrifice.

 

[Disbelief]

Radios? Too busy with the wax and feathers to conjure up communications.

How did the Wright Flyer handle?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Can't you hear the heavy breathing?

Not since I started hanging up on your phone calls.

And not since I quit recording myself calling people... . They just hang up on me now, too.

Can't you feel the sweat? Can't you smell the...uh....uh...flatus?

What, pucker factor's not keeping it in? I'd say you're not flying it right, then . Tight seal, man, tight seal.

You're just a cartoon so anything you say is automatically fiction.

Is not! When I say I love the cat, I really do love the cat!

Well... at least I think it's love...

 

[Reheat]

Is that an EF-111, by the way? It's a little hard to tell in a pic that small if the wings are variable-geometry or not. I figured it's either that or one of the delta-wing Eurofighters...then again the cockpit looks all wrong to be one of those.

Man, I miss having unrestricted access to the honkin' big Jane's manuals.

I see it's been identified. The EF model has a huge antenna atop the vertical stabilizer, so easy to identify.

As you can see in later photos the wings can sweep into a delta wing configuration like the F-106 that was shown. Or in a landing configuration the wings can be positioned at 16⁰ aft of the straight 90⁰.

This photo shows it a little better:

 

[Reheat]

Well... at least I think it's love...

Heck, you really are a skunk! My apologies for thinking you were a rat!

That's much better than the rabbit. Somehow skunks seem to be the better choice when dealing with twoofers.....

Anyway, back to the other fiction of this thread..... or shall we continue to talk airplanes?

 

[Klimax]

Heck, you really are a skunk! My apologies for thinking you were a rat!

That's much better than the rabbit. Somehow skunks seem to be the better choice when dealing with twoofers.....

Anyway, back to the other fiction of this thread..... or shall we continue to talk airplanes?

I think airplanes are better.
I had to wiki EF-111,none usualy source had any info.
Electronic warfare,that sits with you.EF against stupidity and troofers...
Wiki says that "some sources" indicates some Sidewinders could be fitted,are sources right? And why not something in service like EA-6B (from Navy)?

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Sidewinders can be fitted on just about anything with a compatible fire control system and appropriate wing hardpoints. The EA-6B is sadly, not with us anymore. It was built on the old Intruder airframe, which having lived in the VA Beach area, I can tell you is VERY loud. Anyway the functions of the old EW specialty airplanes have gone the way of sensor pods. In the USN, this function is being done by a variant of the Super Hornet - the F/A-18G or "Growler."

 

[Reheat]

Wiki says that "some sources" indicates some Sidewinders could be fitted,are sources right? And why not something in service like EA-6B (from Navy)?

I think I understand your questions. Yes, the EF-111 could carry AIM-9 Sidewinders on the outboard rotating pylon. I'm not sure they always did, but the capability was there.

I think you're asking why the EF-111 was built instead of using something like an EA-6B. Although the two are comparable in terms of mission, they are otherwise quite different.

The EF-111 was newer and had infinitely more EC capability. The EA was quite an old aircraft with obsolete systems by the time the EF was built.

The EF-111 had a lot of automated systems as opposed to mostly manual stuff on the EA-6B. That's the main reason the EF could do the job with only a crew of 2 as opposed to 4 in the EA.

The Gulf War I employment philosophy used "Packages" composed of several different types of aircraft. There were the bomb haulers, air-air-fighters, SEAD, recce, and EW aircraft all flying in a package concept. During the target engagement the EF would stand off a short distance while the bombers did their job. They later rejoined on egress. The EA-6B would not fit with that concept because it was too slow. The EA was subsonic whereas the EF could keep up or even surpass the other fighters in speed.

For example, the F-4 Phantom had the same speed/fuel problem during it's last years of service. It didn't fit with the newer aircraft. F-111's wanted to ingress to a target at 550-600 KIAS. F-16's desired 450, but could handle the higher speed. So could F-15's. The F-4's wanted 420 and if they agreed to higher speeds they ran out of fuel prematurely. None of the other fighters could accept a 420 KIAS ingress speed and hope to realistically/consistently survive a threat engagement.

I hope this answered you questions. If not, ask again....

 

[BenBurch]

Great aircraft information resource; http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/uscombataircraft.html

 

[Jackanory]

Hi all. First real post but about to jump straight in about 175.

I appreciate its been flogged and done. No doubt in my mind it hit WTC2!

Going back to the original 'Abolute proof' post of JSSTgers - the video he refers to is currently being regurgitated on motherboard YT. Poster femr2 has posted numerous edited versions drawing particular attention to the flightpath etc. This in itself isnt unusual, as clearly its a 'coast path' or 'filed flight plan' - researched through FE myself and confirmed with dilligence by inside911. No problem.

What is now being pointed out on a version of this video is a seperate flight N175F. I can find no evidence within any 911 documentation etc of this flight other than this video. If i have missed it then i appologise in advance - I usually find what i want.

This leads me to a logical conclusion that:-

1) The video has been edited/doctored -not unheard of.

or

2) If real, the N175F 'anomaly' is as a direct result of the known transponder switches, subsequently sending a muddled signal.

or


3) As a version of this video suggests that 'N175F' is at 700ft and speed of 138 -A search for N175F brings up a 1958 cessna 175 from AZ. Was this in the area?

Can anyone elaborate on this please.

 

[Baylor]

Actually, N175F refers to the flight number, not the FAA tail number. The flight number "N175F", or whatever it says on flight explorer was probably an F-15 or F-16. The "N" stands for NEADS. Maybe Reheat will chime in and either confirm or refute what I said.

All the "N" aircraft Keith Olbermann pointed to in the video were scrambled fighter jets from Rome, NY. If you watch the video again you'll see some of them go off to the Atlantic Coast, just like they were trained.

 

[Jackanory]

Unlovedrebel - Thanks. I had already assumed that N175F was a flight number and not a tail number.

Edit to your edit - Thanks again. I hadnt given military aircraft a thought, due to the supposed altitude ans speed referred too in the video. Back to the research again.