Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Uncle Chip

So, I guess we can choose whether to believe General McInerney and his sources...or...?? Yours??

This guy has a reputation for credibility and has given plausible scenarios. He’s also said his Boeing sources were “covert”, which I’d take to mean other than the corporate PR flacks. Boeing is involved in many activities other than making airplanes, including supporting large scale communications networks and computer systems all around the world. Which is to say, a covert source could have access to data not available to most.


40 posted on 03/23/2014 1:41:07 PM PDT by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: bigbob

If in Pakistan, it is being refitted with extra fuel tanks that will enable it to be flown anywhere in the world with just maybe a nuke onboard.


48 posted on 03/23/2014 1:50:13 PM PDT by eastforker (Cruz for steam in 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: bigbob

You have Boeing confused with the CIA and so does the General.

Boeing sources put its plane in the waters off Australia.

The navies of 14 nations believe those Boeing sources enough to commit resources down there looking for it.

I’ll go with their Boeing sources.


71 posted on 03/23/2014 2:44:14 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson