Who Is Darleen Druyun?, person of interest
valis
Posted: Aug 6 2006, 03:05 PM


Information Liaison
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 601
Member No.: 742
Joined: 23-March 06



Darleen Druyun

user posted image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun

Darleen Druyun, former No. 2 acquisition executive for the Air Force and future Boeing vice president, was sentenced to 9 months for treason - for illegally modifying Boeing aircraft.

Former Air Force buyer jailed over Boeing deal
http://www.spymac.com/blogs/blog.php?userid=154773
QUOTE
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (Reuters) -- The U.S. Air Force's former No. 2 weapons buyer was sentenced to nine months in prison on Friday after telling the court she had given Boeing Co. a rival's secret data and inflated weapons deals to ingratiate herself with the company, her future employer.

The disclosure of Darleen Druyun's efforts on behalf of Boeing could spark a new round of ethical, legal and business headaches for the Chicago-based aerospace giant, the Pentagon's No. 2 supplier after Lockheed Martin Corp.

Druyun, 56, tearfully acknowledged before Federal District Judge T.S. Ellis she had agreed to a higher price than she thought was appropriate for what became a $23.5 billion plan to acquire modified Boeing 767 aircraft as refueling tankers.


Ex-Pentagon procurement executive gets jail time
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/100104g1.htm

Now, interestingly enough, on 9/11, she chaired the NATO E-3A Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) program which co-ordinated the 'red team' attack using the Boeing controlled Iridium satellite network.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=AWACS...G=Google+Search

http://www.dvagroup.com/Audio%20and%20Data...0Paper%20V4.htm

http://www.valis.cjb.cc/HawksCAFE/080306.html

Food for thought...
Top
Agent Orange
Posted: Aug 6 2006, 03:10 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 527
Member No.: 446
Joined: 5-March 06



Hmmm...never heard of this/her. Thanks.
Top
Sun Zoo
Posted: Aug 6 2006, 03:10 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (valis @ Aug 6 2006, 03:05 PM)
Darleen Druyun

user posted image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun

Darleen Druyun, former No. 2 acquisition executive for the Air Force and future Boeing vice president, was sentenced to 9 months for treason - for illegally modifying Boeing aircraft.

Former Air Force buyer jailed over Boeing deal
http://www.spymac.com/blogs/blog.php?userid=154773
QUOTE
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (Reuters) -- The U.S. Air Force's former No. 2 weapons buyer was sentenced to nine months in prison on Friday after telling the court she had given Boeing Co. a rival's secret data and inflated weapons deals to ingratiate herself with the company, her future employer.

The disclosure of Darleen Druyun's efforts on behalf of Boeing could spark a new round of ethical, legal and business headaches for the Chicago-based aerospace giant, the Pentagon's No. 2 supplier after Lockheed Martin Corp.

Druyun, 56, tearfully acknowledged before Federal District Judge T.S. Ellis she had agreed to a higher price than she thought was appropriate for what became a $23.5 billion plan to acquire modified Boeing 767 aircraft as refueling tankers.


Ex-Pentagon procurement executive gets jail time
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/100104g1.htm

Now, interestingly enough, on 9/11, she chaired the NATO E-3A Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) program which co-ordinated the 'red team' attack using the Boeing controlled Iridium satellite network.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=AWACS...G=Google+Search

http://www.dvagroup.com/Audio%20and%20Data...0Paper%20V4.htm

http://www.valis.cjb.cc/HawksCAFE/080306.html

Food for thought...

Interesting find! huh.gif
Top
Sun Zoo
Posted: Aug 6 2006, 03:21 PM


Unregistered









Speaking of modified Boeing Tankers...

QUOTE
QUOTE
Let's be clear about one thing. The plane which hit the south tower was not and could not possibly have been flight 175 piloted by Arab Islamist extremist terrorists. That's established fact, based on first hand, recorded in real time, physical reality. The plane that hit the south tower was not flight 175.

QUOTE
user posted image
user posted image
As we saw in "The Wrong Plane", the nose section of a 200 series, A, is shorter than the wing assembly, B. Whereas for the 300 series A is longer than B.
767-200 => A:B = 190:200 = 0.95:1, i.e. A is less than B
767-300 => A:B = 221:200 = 1.105:1, i.e. A is greater than B

While the NIST frames give us A:B = 20.76:19.91 = 1.04:1
(remember that these are Lower Limit Values, see Techie Notes),
in other words, A is greater than B
Therefore: This plane's fuselage is too long to be a Boeing 767-200.

Ergo: The plane that hit the South Tower was not N612UA. It was not Flight 175!

Here is the video from which those frames were extracted btw.
http://thatvideosite.com/view/646.html
Correction: Taken from a series of still photos which had been published by NIST for their report.

Here's the same comparison yet again, from yet another perspective.

Photo by Aaorn C. Traub
user posted image
user posted image
Feel free to open in resized split screens if you like
http://www.amics21.com/911/imags/ua155_g.jpg
http://www.amics21.com/911/imags/scale.jpg

Actual Flight 175
Medium
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/205074/M/
Large
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/205074/L/
United Airlines
Boeing 767-222
New York - John F. Kennedy International (Idlewild) (JFK / KJFK)
USA - New York, April 28, 2001
N612UA

QUOTE
Techie Notes:
Of course, doing a dimensional analysis like this is like walking into a minefield. A thousand people could repeat the process and you'd be lucky to get two sets of matching figures. "The World is Wide", says my friend Walter paraphrasing the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. So to prevent any quibbling, the figures shown represent the lower limit values for the ratio A:B. In other words, we've been as generous as is reasonably possible in defining the distance B (the left-hand line barely touches the rear wing-tips, while the middle line has been set just past where the leading edge of the wing meets the fuselage) and strict in defining A (the right-hand line is set where the nose touches the building, though it clearly goes beyond this point). Nevertheless, this still gives us a value for A that is greater than B.

There may also be a difference in dimensions depending on how the images have been obtained. Though irrespective of the method employed you'll still get a value for the ratio A:B that is greater than 1.
To satisfy the perfinicky I'll describe how the images were processed:
The Scott Myers frames were obtained from the CatQueen JPEG. This is at 26 pixels/inch, so the resolution was raised to 72 pixels/inch for importing into QuarkExpress to give the quoted figures. When clipped and sent back into PhotoShop this gave a JPEG of 766 pixels width, this was reduced to 600 pixels in the above picture for the purposes of page layout.
QUOTE
This is what is most interesting however..

user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
QUOTE
Open side by side images
http://letsroll911.org/images/fueljetspray.jpg
in a separate screen, size it, and then view it again, relative to both slomo videos, in terms of the end point of the apparent pipelike-structure on lower right side of fuselage.

Flame-flash (two separate cameras and angles, though it was recorded from 4, total)
1) http://www.letsroll911.net/images/CourtesyCNNABC.wmv

2) http://www.letsroll911.net/images/Pip%20Low.wmv

Context and framing is everything.

Most definitely, "There Is An Incendiary Device On The 2nd Plane".

It's conclusive.


And if controlled demolition of the twin towers is firmly established, which it has been, once again based on first hand, recorded in real time physical reality - and, if it can be conclusively shown that this plane was something other than flight 175, which it has also, then the purpose of this aircraft becomes clear, by rational, logical, deductive reasoning.

user posted image

The plane was not flown by poorly trained Arabs on a mission from Osama bin Laden because they "hate our freedoms".

In fact, there was no one on board that plane at all.

QUOTE
Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."

Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”

Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.”

Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

QUOTE
Extra Equipment on "Flight 175"? WTF?
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
Pod Framework
Stacking...(same phenomenon, seven point comparative framework, to compensate for varying degrees of resolution and 'fuzziness')
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/podi...dTowersmall.jpg
It the 'bulge' (pod) a wing root fairing?
http://www.september11news.com/YahooTopPicsEmail2.jpg
Flame-flash impact photo (yet another camera and position)
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2001/trade.c...maginable/2.jpg
Evan Fairbanks ABC Video frame (yet another camera and angle)
http://www.letsroll911.net/images/fuss.gif
CNN/ABC video slomo (present through all the frames)
http://www.letsroll911.net/images/CourtesyCNNABC.wmv
Clark Photo
http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/7106/impact3a7hh.jpg
1st two frames. Ignore arrowed comment.
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/podi...podsequence.jpg
And there's a google video showing the plane coming in head on, and in it also, there is a large bulbous silvery bulge, at the same location, which makes it an 8 point comparative framework.
Here it is
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...8&q=South+Tower
QUOTE (Ouguiya @ May 16 2006, 11:40 AM)
Hey It was NO WING FAIRING.

The pod is seeable only on one side of the plane! This plane has something that is NOT SYMETRICAL on it's bottom!!!

Also note, that it is seeable on all pictures, so it couldn't have always been shadows and light tricks, sorry, this only works from one or maybe two angles, but not from that much.
QUOTE
Upon careful examination, Boeing refuses to clarify, citing "National Security"

One morning last February a young reader came into the head offices  of LaVanguardia.es with an idea in his head that had occurred to him as he was looking attentively at the videos and photos on 9/11.

There are reader/discoverers. They're readers who get a chance to bring news out—provide their newspapers with an exclusive story. It is initiative which is gratefully received. These readers are efficient spontaneous reporters. That's what's happened in the case of the mystery of the plane which crashed into the WTC in new York on 11 September 2001.

The reader who walked into the editing room of LaVanguardia.es that winter's morning with photos under his arm was attended to by Josep Maria Calvet. The reader, who has asked to remain anonymously as R.R., asked the journalist to look hard at some of the details in the photos: two strange shapes which appeared below the aircraft.

This is how the reporters' work started off the results of which were published in articles in "La Vanguardia" on 22 June and 13 July 2003, and as I commented at the request of a reader, in the last article before the summer holiday season, published on 27 July 2003.

One function of the readers' ombudsman explained in La Vanguardia statutes is to describe the procedure the journalist follows in preparing, elaborating and publishing the story he takes up. The circumstances of this case beg telling the inside story of these reports.

Did "La Vanguardia" come up with this? How did the reporters find out about the mystery of the plane?

Two days after R.R.'s visit, the editorial office contacted Eduardo Martín de Pozuelo to ask him have a look and give his opinion on the shapes or bumps to be seen in the images of the plane seconds before it crashed into the skyscaper.

The office checked that the photos had not been manipulated in any way and that they coincided with the ones held in the newspaper's archives. It was true. There were strange "shapes" or "bumps".

Martín de Pozuelo set to work. He had a meeting with R.R. and Calvet at La Vanguardia.es head office. They spent two long afternoons poring over the photos, videos and all the visual material they could get together on the attack on the twin towers in New York. What conclusion did they come to?

They noticed evidence of shapes present on the fuselage of the plane. They couldn't tell what on earth it was.

Martín de Pozeulo has told the ombudsman that he did not think it was opportune to publish anything as yet on the subject. Data and reliable sources were missing. He says about these "shapes":

"It looked like an optical effect but as that was a totally subjective opinion I showed the photos to fellow photographers and asked them to give their opinion as image experts. They swung between the hypothesis of an optical effect or an added object, as I did. The reporters persevered.

They consulted another expert, Amparo Sacristán, an image and microelectronics specialist at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Her first appraisal encouraged them to go on in their investigation. Doctor Sacristán performed a digital analysis of the photos and concluded that they were shapes not reflections brilliance. The results of this new stage were surprising and disconcerting.

Xavier Mas de Xaxàs, who was working as a correspondent for the "La Vanguardia" in the United States on the 11 September 2001, searched for news, published or unpublished, which could throw some light on the matter. He was gathering information on the poor security at Logan airport (Washington).

Meanwhile Martín de Pozuelo consulted aviation experts—among them an aeronautical engineer who asked not to be identified, due to his rank. He spent all one morning analising the photos in the "La Vanguardia". His pronouncement reinforced the hypothesis of something added to the fuselage.

The two reporters conducting the investigation were not convinced, of course. They were sceptical. They decided to take it one step further to dispel all doubt. They turned to US sources. The Boeing company in Seattle agreed to have a look at the photos and give their conclusions. The photographs were sent electronically from "La Vanguardia".

For ten days, by telephone and electronic mail, the company responded whenever called by the two "La Vanguardia" newsmen, as the photos were studied by various departments at the company. Finally, from Seattle, back came a surprising, enigmatic reply: "We are not able to tell you what it is. Security reasons."

It was then that the newsmen decided there was enough to report to "La Vanguardia" readers. The text and photos were handed in to the newspaper's editorial office to assess whether to publish a first report. It was released in the June 22 issue. It caused an impact, even in the United States, where the translation of the "La Vanguardia" article was hung on a web site dedicated to 9/11.

The two reporters then asked Boeing once more: "Is there any further news?" Answer: "No answer for security reasons". A negative reply which does not clear up the mystery. And so they continue to investigate.
QUOTE
http://www.amics21.com/911/ombudsman2.html
user posted image
http://www.amics21.com/911/enigma.html
http://www.amics21.com/911/breakdown.html
http://www.amics21.com/911/report.html

QUOTE
9/11 War Games Operations
Games of 911
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/septem...904wargames.htm
Ruppert's Presentation
http://www.vunet.org/article/viihde/story131.html
Alex Jones Interview with Stanley Hilton
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/091204hilton.htm
Oil Wars and Oil Hegemony
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/fs2002/bases-2.wmv

user posted image
QUOTE ("Locutus")
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b767/
"With military versions of the 707 reaching the end of their service life, Boeing has also begun offering tanker, airborne early warning, battlefield surveillance, and electronic reconnaissance variants. Only the E-767 AWACS model has entered service thus far, being operated by Japan. The US Air Force has also committed to leasing 100 767 tanker variants for ten years.

Including all models, some 835 767s have been built by 2001. Orders have been declining in recent years, and the production line could be closed down if the US Air Force order is cancelled. It is likely that the 767 line will eventually be replaced by the new Boeing 7E7."

I submit that Flight-175 was a prototype of the 767 airborne platform listed in this article. Flight-175 may not have been just a Tanker, it may have been a prototype - retro-fittable 767 military platform craft, which can be used as a cargo transport, tanker, AWACS, air and ground surveillance, covert ops, etc.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys.../e-767-mc2a.htm

"The Air Force plans to pursue the Multi-Sensor Command and Control Aircraft program, about 60 aircraft that would replace Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System and Airborne Warning and Control System planes and other aircraft. The service may buy converted Boeing 767-400ER airliners and add the new capabilities in three stages: a next-generation air-to-ground radar by 2010, the air search radar and advanced battle management systems around 2015, and signals-intelligence equipment in 2020. It could cost the Air Force about $58 billion to develop, buy and support the MC2A, based on using the smaller, less expensive 767-200ER aircraft instead of the planned 767-400ER.

Current plans call for the initial acquisition of one 767 airframe for development testing in FY2003, followed by four more production aircraft. This development phase will run concurrently with MP-RTIP testing into 2009. The initial four production aircraft would begin phased airframe modification starting in FY 2007, following initial airworthiness flight testing of the test bed."

"following initial airworthiness flight testing of the test bed." ...very likely that "flight testing" was occurring on 911, with this asset incoporated into the Games of 911.
QUOTE
Open side by side images
http://letsroll911.org/images/fueljetspray.jpg
in a separate screen, size it, and then view it again, relative to both slomo videos, in terms of the end point of the apparent pipelike-structure on lower right side of fuselage.

Flame-flash (two separate cameras and angles, though it was recorded from 4, total)
1) http://www.letsroll911.net/images/CourtesyCNNABC.wmv

2) http://www.letsroll911.net/images/Pip%20Low.wmv

Speed of Plane (575MPH) Long Approach
http://www.vialls.com/wtc/radiocontrol.html


QUOTE
Professional Pilots speak out

Russel L. Wittenberg

Russ Wittenberg has numerous FAA certificates ranging from Airline Pilot and Flight Engineer to Ground Instructor and Aircraft Dispatcher. He is certified to fly an incredible range of aircraft including Boeing 707s, 727s, 747s, 757s, 767s and 777s. The supposed aircraft used on 9/11 were Boeing 757s and 767s.

Certificate: AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT
Rating(s):
• AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
COMMERCIAL PRIVILEGES
• AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
• AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE SEA
• GLIDER

Type Ratings (Note: these are aircraft types)

A/B-707 A/B-720 A/B-727 A/B-737 A/B-747 A/B-757 A/B-767 A/B-777 A/DC-8 A/L-1049 A/LR-JET
DOI : 07/25/1995

Certificate: FLIGHT ENGINEER
Rating: FLIGHT ENGINEER TURBOJET POWERED
DOI : 11/02/1978

Certificate: GROUND INSTRUCTOR
Rating(s):
• GROUND INSTRUCTOR ADVANCED
• INSTRUMENT
DOI : 11/02/1978

Certificate: AIRCRAFT DISPATCHER
DOI : 11/02/1978

Mr. Wittenberg's flying credentials may be confirmed by contacting:

United States Federal Aviation Administration Registry
Civil Aviation Registry
AFS-700
PO BOX 25082
Oklahoma City, OK 73125

Audio Interview
2004-09-16 Russ Wittenberg Interview:
http://911underground.com/WING_TV_2004-09-...g_Interview.MP3

QUOTE
"I also flew the two United airplanes that were involved in 9/11. Those two actual airplanes."
QUOTE
Nila Sagadevan

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft without Training
21 Feb 2006, Nila Sagadevan
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Sagadevan21Feb2006.html
Tue., November 22, 2005
Nila Sagadevan
Aeronautics Engineer and trained "heavy" Pilot,
Discussing the inplausibility of the official story regarding flying capabilities of hijackers, in particular, Hani Hanjour (MUST Listen)
Audio Interview
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg/0511/20051122_Tue_Greg.m3u [right click and save target as]

QUOTE
Evidence of final to-target high G-force turn (@ 550+MPH, approx 1000 feet alt.)

Speed of Plane (575MPH) Long Approach
http://www.vialls.com/wtc/radiocontrol.html

Speed and maneuvering (CNN Right Side, Long Approach)
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/11/exc...sh.cnn.med.html

CNN impact video
http://www.letsroll911.net/images/CNN-2ndT...ound-4.6meg.MPG

Upward Bending Right Wing
user posted image
user posted image
The frick'n wing was almost snapping right off for Pete's sake. This also explains why the nose was diving down and the plane losing altitude at the last instant. We're talking black out level G-force when the blood is drained from your head.

QUOTE
Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."

Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”

Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.”

Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

Speed of Plane (575MPH) Long Approach
http://www.vialls.com/wtc/radiocontrol.html

QUOTE ("hdhntr")
The black boxes
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html

December 20, 2005

A CounterPunch Special Report
Did the Bush Administration Lie to Congress and the 9/11 Commission?
9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI

By DAVE LINDORFF

One of the more puzzling mysteries of 9-11 is what ever happened to the flight recorders of the two planes that hit the World Trade Center towers. Now it appears that they may not be missing at all.

Counterpunch has learned that the FBI has them.

Flight recorders (commonly known as black boxes, though these days they are generally bright orange) are required on all passenger planes. There are always two-a flight data recorder that keeps track of a plane's speed, altitude, course and maneuvers, and a cockpit voice recorder which keeps a continuous record of the last 30 minutes of conversation inside a plane's cockpit. These devices are constructed to be extremely durable, and are installed in a plane's tail section, where they are least likely suffer damaged on impact. They are designed to withstand up to 30 minutes of 1800-degree heat (more than they would have faced in the twin towers crashes), and to survive a crash at full speed into the ground.

All four of the devices were recovered from the two planes that hit the Pentagon and that crashed in rural Pennsylvania. In the case of American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, the FBI reports that the flight data recorder survived and had recoverable information, but the voice recorder was allegedly too damaged to provide any record. In the case of United Airlines Flight 93, which hit the ground at 500 mph in Pennsylvania, the situation was reversed: the voice recorder survived but the flight data box was allegedly damaged beyond recovery.

But the FBI states, and also reported to the 9-11 Commission, that none of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered.

There has always been some skepticism about this assertion, particularly as two N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them. (The FBI denies the whole story.) Moreover, these devices are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition (and the cleanup of the World Trade Center was meticulous, with even tiny bone fragments and bits of human tissue being discovered so that almost all the victims were ultimately identified). As Ted Lopatkiewicz, director of public affairs at the National Transportation Safety Agency which has the job of analyzing the boxes' data, says, "It's very unusual not to find a recorder after a crash, although it's also very unusual to have jets flying into buildings."

Now there is stronger evidence that something is amiss than simply the alleged non-recovery of all four of those boxes. A source at the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency that has the task of deciphering the date from the black boxes retrieved from crash sites-including those that are being handled as crimes and fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI-says the boxes were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB.

"Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."

The official word from the NTSB is that the WTC crash site black boxes never turned up. "No recorders were recovered from the World Trade Center," says the NTSB's Lopatkiewicz. "At least none were delivered to us by the FBI." He adds that the agency has "always had a good relationship' with the FBI and that in all prior crime-related crashes or flight incidents, they have brought the boxes to the NTSB for analysis.

For its part, the FBI is still denying everything, though with curious bit of linguistic wiggle room. "To the best of my knowledge, the flight recording devices from the World Trade Center crashes were never recovered. At least we never had them," says FBI spokesman Stephen Kodak.

What the apparent existence of the black boxes in government hands means is unclear.

If the information in those boxes is recoverable, or if, as is likely, it has been recovered already, it could give crucial evidence regarding the skill of the hijacker/pilots, perhaps of their strategy, of whether they were getting outside help in guiding them to their targets, of how fast they were flying and a host of other things.

Why would the main intelligence and law enforcement arm of the U.S. government want to hide from the public not just the available information about the two hijacked flights that provided the motivation and justification for the nation's "War on Terror" and for its two wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, but even the fact that it has the devices which could contain that information? Conspiracy theories abound, with some claiming the planes were actually pilotless military aircraft, or that they had little or nothing to do with the building collapses. The easiest way to quash such rumors and such fevered thinking would be openness.

Instead we have the opposite: a dark secrecy that invites many questions regarding the potentially embarrassing or perhaps even sinister information that might be on those tapes.

Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His new book of CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press. Information about both books and other work by Lindorff can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net.

He can be reached at: dlindorff@yahoo.com

Bottom line, it most certainly was not flight 175, and it wasn't piloted by an Arab Islamist extremist terrorist either.

http://control-alt-delete.ca/v-web/bulleti...p?p=36448#36448

The Result?
user posted image
user posted image

Most probable culprit, based on the entire record of all observed phenomenon and information?
user posted image
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc767/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...raft/kc-767.htm
QUOTE
The Boeing 767 tanker transport aircraft, designated KC-767 for the US Air Force, is a high performance version of the Boeing 767-200ER twin aisle jetliner equipped for fully integrated tanker operations. It is fitted with either boom and receptacle refuelling, hose and drogue refuelling or both. The commercial 767 first entered service in 1982 and more than 880 aircraft have been delivered. The cabin of the tanker can be configured for passenger transport, as a freighter, convertible (passenger or freighter) or Combi (passenger and freighter).

DESIGN
The structure incorporates new materials such as improved aluminium alloys, graphite composites and hybrid Kevlar graphite composites, which give enhanced strength, durability and longevity.

The configuration of a commercial 767 for the tanker transport role involves the installation of additional pumps and auxiliary fuel tanks together with the fuel distribution lines below the floor of the main cabin, leaving the main cabin free for cargo, passenger or both cargo and passenger transportation. The concept allows simultaneous refuelling and airlift operations or successive refuelling and airlift missions.

In the cargo configuration, the aircraft can transport 19 standard military 463-L pallets; in the passenger configuration, 200 passengers can be accommodated; and in the Combi configuration ten cargo pallets and 100 passengers can be carried.

COCKPIT
The 767 Tanker Transport aircraft has an advanced two person all-digital flight deck.
QUOTE
Dark Circle under Tail (Refueling Boom Removed?)
Note that there is no such mark, tail skid, or avionics blade antenna at that location for a normal Boeing 767-200, and therefore nothing else to account for this perfectly circular blemish visible in both the still photo and the CNN freeze frame.
http://www.letsroll911.net/images/unders.jpg
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2001/trade.c...maginable/2.jpg

German Engineers Fireball and Kerosene (Jet Fuel) Smoke Cloud Magnitude Analysis
(note that they came to the conclusion that a 767-200 fully fueled for a cross-continental trip to LA could have contained a sufficient amount of fuel to account for the fireball and smoke cloud observed - without knowledge of the Tanker Transport or of of the extra equipment [pod and pipe structure] retrofitted to it.
user posted image
user posted image

Dark Circle under Tail (Refueling Boom Removed?)
Note that there is no such mark, tail skid, or avionics blade antenna at that location for a normal Boeing 767-200, and therefore nothing else to account for this perfectly circular blemish visible in both the still photo and the CNN freeze frame.
user posted image

Standard Military 463-L Fuel Cargo Pallet
"In the cargo configuration, the aircraft can transport 19 standard military 463-L pallets; in the passenger configuration, 200 passengers can be accommodated; and in the Combi configuration ten cargo pallets and 100 passengers can be carried."

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/ar/misc/463L.html
Pallet Dimensions
Width: 108 inches. Length: 88 inches.
Height: 2 1/4 inches.

Pallet Usable Dimensions
Width: 104 inches. Length: 84 inches.

Pallet Weight, Empty 290 lbs
Weight of Nets (side and top) 65 lbs
Maximum Cargo Weight 10,000 lbs
Desired Load Capacity 7,500 lbs
Maximum Gross Weight 10,355 lbs
http://www.allcases.com/productpage.asp?productid=2560

QUOTE
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc767/
DESIGN

The structure incorporates new materials such as improved aluminium alloys, graphite composites and hybrid Kevlar graphite composites, which give enhanced strength, durability and longevity.

The configuration of a commercial 767 for the tanker transport role involves the installation of additional pumps and auxiliary fuel tanks together with the fuel distribution lines below the floor of the main cabin, leaving the main cabin free for cargo, passenger or both cargo and passenger transportation. The concept allows simultaneous refuelling and airlift operations or successive refuelling and airlift missions.

In the cargo configuration, the aircraft can transport 19 standard military 463-L pallets; in the passenger configuration, 200 passengers can be accommodated; and in the Combi configuration ten cargo pallets and 100 passengers can be carried.

user posted image
G, that's quite the fireball! huh.gif
Top
valis
Posted: Aug 6 2006, 03:33 PM


Information Liaison
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 601
Member No.: 742
Joined: 23-March 06



QUOTE
Most definitely, "There Is An Incendiary Device On The 2nd Plane".

Do remote-control flash bombs prove 'United 93' a fraud?
http://www.valis.cjb.cc/HawksCAFE/043006.html
QUOTE
Each hijacked jet generated a flash or white smoke when the ignition command
was received.

Flight 11 flash - "In the televised version of the plane [Flight 11] hitting
the North tower there is a frame containing a huge bright flash of light that
has been digitally removed from the DVD version."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/091603dvd.html

Flight 175 flash - " ..claims the flash represents use of an explosive device
which was required to act as like a match to ignite the fuel into the
subsequent fireball .. Perhaps some explosive weapon was triggered from inside
the cockpit, or was hidden in the nose cone .. Others feel flashes are a
chemical reaction, a combustion of metal [aluminum in thermite reaction]
pulverized by the impact"
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...6lr%3D%26sa%3DG

Flight 77 flash - "That's why on the still photos from Pentagon surveillance
camera, you first see the frame with that brilliant white luminescent flash
just before the frame of the orange fireball, the jet fuel burning."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/uploa...video2-_nc_.jpg

Flight 93 flash (?) – ".. a passenger reports hearing an explosion and seeing
white smoke [consistent with thermite] in the cabin of the aircraft while it is
still flying. The air traffic control tapes reveal that the passengers .. were
told there was a bomb on board."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/f93bomb.html

The human eye is tricked into seeing high-speed collision and flash as a
connected and related event.

Boeing built all four passenger jets destroyed in 9/11 and Boeing operates a
real-time Iridium satellite communications system capable of remotely
controlling hijacked planes through the autopilot and of triggering igniters or
detonators pre-positioned in the plane.
http://www.dvagroup.com/Audio%20and%20Data...0Paper%20V4.htm
Top
valis
Posted: Aug 10 2006, 02:45 PM


Information Liaison
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 601
Member No.: 742
Joined: 23-March 06



Canadian ambassador in manufactured panic of 9/11
http://www.valis.cjb.cc/HawksCAFE/081006.html
QUOTE
Open e-mail sent August 09, 2006 to:

Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper
U.S. Vice-President Richard Cheney

From:
David Hawkins, Forensic Economist at Hawks' CAFE
Foundation Scholar, Cambridge University
British Columbia, Canada Tel: 604-542-0891
valis.cjb.cc/HawksCAFE/

Ccs include:
Steven Jones and Jim Fetzer,
Co-chairs of Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Bccs

Dear Prime Minister Harper and Vice President Cheney:

Re: Canadian ambassador in manufactured panic of 9/11

I have evidence to prove CAI co-investors, Mohammad al-Zaibak and Frank McKenna - a future Canadian ambassador to the United States - procured Boeing and AMEC's war game services to sabotage American command centers and use 9/11 for a 'manufactured panic' to legitimize Global Guardian - a bogus continuity-of-government exercise run through the U.S. Department of State.
http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/04-04-05/...ion.cgi.95.html

When the 9/11 panic failed to materialize, McKenna and his CAI colleagues ordered Boeing at 10:03 a.m. to detonate a bomb on the drone flying as Flight 93 and divert all its other illegally-modified aircraft to Canada under cover of a general order to "Clear the Skies!" above America.

CAI and McKenna ordered AMEC and its mobbed-up subcontractors to plant, collect or destroy evidence and thereby conceal a conspiracy linking Logan Airport, Ground Zero, the Pentagon and Shanksville, Pa., through Boeing satellite communications networks used by the U.S. Department of State, 'al-Qaeda' leaders and the terrorist group's domestic allies in Canada and America.
www.amec.com/earthandenvi...ageid=1107

I offer some support references at http://valis.cjb.cc/HawksCAFE/ and invite your response.


Yours sincerely,

David Hawkins
Top
Sun Zoo
  Posted: Aug 14 2006, 03:17 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (Sun Zoo @ Aug 7 2006, 03:50 PM)
QUOTE (valis @ Aug 6 2006, 03:05 PM)
Darleen Druyun

user posted image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun

Darleen Druyun, former No. 2 acquisition executive for the Air Force and future Boeing vice president, was sentenced to 9 months for treason - for illegally modifying Boeing aircraft.

Former Air Force buyer jailed over Boeing deal
http://www.spymac.com/blogs/blog.php?userid=154773
QUOTE
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (Reuters) -- The U.S. Air Force's former No. 2 weapons buyer was sentenced to nine months in prison on Friday after telling the court she had given Boeing Co. a rival's secret data and inflated weapons deals to ingratiate herself with the company, her future employer.

The disclosure of Darleen Druyun's efforts on behalf of Boeing could spark a new round of ethical, legal and business headaches for the Chicago-based aerospace giant, the Pentagon's No. 2 supplier after Lockheed Martin Corp.

Druyun, 56, tearfully acknowledged before Federal District Judge T.S. Ellis she had agreed to a higher price than she thought was appropriate for what became a $23.5 billion plan to acquire modified Boeing 767 aircraft as refueling tankers.


Ex-Pentagon procurement executive gets jail time
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/100104g1.htm

Now, interestingly enough, on 9/11, she chaired the NATO E-3A Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) program which co-ordinated the 'red team' attack using the Boeing controlled Iridium satellite network.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=AWACS...G=Google+Search

http://www.dvagroup.com/Audio%20and%20Data...0Paper%20V4.htm

http://www.valis.cjb.cc/HawksCAFE/080306.html

Food for thought...


You know, she'd make a potentially GREAT interview! Someone should write to her in prison and try to contact her! See if she's got any juicy tidbits she might be ready to reveal, now that almost 50% of Americans think it was an inside job. She must know some stuff, right???

This post has been edited by Sun Zoo on Aug 14 2006, 03:17 PM
Top
Sun Zoo
Posted: Aug 14 2006, 03:19 PM


Unregistered









Yeah, you write to her, and get a correspondance going...!
Top
valis
Posted: Aug 14 2006, 04:13 PM


Information Liaison
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 601
Member No.: 742
Joined: 23-March 06



QUOTE
She was released from prison on September 30, 2005.
Top
waterdancer
Posted: Aug 26 2006, 08:57 AM


Advanced Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 295
Member No.: 4,320
Joined: 22-August 06



Can you please back up the Shaliskivili Biggs
QUOTE
equipped the Canadian red-team with fuel bomber drones for a bogus war game
claim or the
QUOTE
Canadian officers, reporting to a NATO AWACS, were in charge of defending AND ATTACKING America
claim with a link to some documentation? Thanks in advance.

This post has been edited by waterdancer on Aug 26 2006, 08:58 AM
Top
8bitagent
Posted: Aug 26 2006, 12:01 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 788
Member No.: 2,975
Joined: 18-June 06



It's odd, even in the official story the hijackers allegedly have a "bomb" on board flight 93, a passenger on his airphone says events are happening consistent with a bomb...and debris is scattered for 9 milies.

Tho, no reason the US would cover up "terrorists" blowing up flight 93, so who knows.
Top
« Next Oldest | Investigate 9/11 | Next Newest »

Topic Options



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.1676 seconds | Archive