Photos Prove Connection Between Iraq and Al-Qaeda Terrorists

Rush Limbaugh ^ | March 14, 2003

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

Photos Prove Connection Between Iraq and Al-Qaeda Terrorists

Wrong, Rush. Photos prove that Iraq has a jet fusilage probably used to train for hijackings. I see nothing in these photos that proves a damn thing relating to al Quaida. Plus. I've been seeing these photos for almost a year. If they proved Iraq's links to al Quaida, why didn't Colin Powell use them in his presentation to the U.N? Why aren't GW and Rumsfeld splashing them across every screen in America? Because these photos don't prove jack. Nice try.

[apeman81]

Actually, it looks like the fuselage of an Il-86 sans landing gear resting directly upon the ground. The wings have been removed and placed on the ground as well, but out of position. While it could be used for terrorist training, it could just as well be used for airport rescue training.
It matters not. Let’s take out Iraq for refusing to meet the UN sanctions, a well established fact, and look for the terrorist ties later. To do other than that now gives legitimacy to those who try to delay action by foisting ties to terrorism as the only reason to act.
They’re wrong, let’s not be

[11x62]

Maybe coupled with statements from witnesses that this was used as terror training this story might have some meaning.

But I have seen junker airplanes on airport grounds used for fire/rescue training. Remember being warned by the pilot once arriving in Anchorage that the smoldering plane with the fire trucks all around, off to one side had just used in a practice fire training exercise.

Iraq could just as well claim using the plane for hostage rescue practice. Weren't we shown some video of sky marshall training inside airplanes about a year ago?

[dozer7]

"Because that is not a jet aircraft."

It's not? The sweep of the wings, their aspect ratio and their position of the fuslage imply that is a jet aircraft. Although it appears that section 48 of the aircraft has been removed one cannot say with certainty what propulsion was on the the after part of the aircraft. If it was a prop pusher aircraft prudent design would dictate carnards on section 41 of the aircraft none are apparent. The Beech Starship is a place to start on swept wing pusher aircraft. If not a jet aircraft - what is it.

best regards

the dozer

[Yasotay]

Well, if you had tried reading up on this topic a little more before swinging off the handle ...

We have a guy here in Oregon who has remodeled a 727 into a home, is he training terrorists? .... thanks for posting the pictures.

I did not think that is swinging off the "handle"

I also believe that Saddam is very guilty of aiding terrorists including those of WTC1 ... OKC and 9-11 (checkout Jayna Davis's website)

Yes, I have done some reading about this thread .... again I encourage you to read Jayna Davis's website.

[algol]

That is not a jet aircraft.

Of course not, it's a baby milk plant.

[algol]

There is no match by lookdown silouhette, with any commercial jet or business class jet or military transport jet.

There aren't enough pixels to tell one way or the other, and the scale isn't clear, but I can think of at least a half-dozen of that configuration: DC-9, Caravelle, B-727, Trident, and several different bizjets, although it looks too big for the latter. Looks to me most like a DeHavilland Trident or a Boeing 727.

There are no shadows beneath the "wings."

Sure there are, you just can't see them because the wings are blocking them. Sun angle, old chap.

The leading edge of the root of the "vertical stabilizer" is ahead of the "wingtips" and starts (from "nose" to "tail") at the aft, trailing root of the "wings" --- there is no such aircraft shape in the inventories.

The tail-mounted center engine on the Trident or 727 extends forward of the vertical stab, and looks just like this, at least within the resolution of the picture.

To the "southeast" of the "jet," there is a collection of similarly-colored material, probably a pile of rocks associated with the "structure."

So there's a pile of rocks, so what? Actually, though, if you enlarge the image, that structure looks like two small delta wings with a center body, which could well the the detached horizontal stabilizer of the jet, it's about the right size and, as you point out, similarly-colored.

[Republican_Strategist]

No, these pictures prove what Iraqi defectors have been telling us about Iraq training hijackers at an Iraqi Terrorist Camp and of course Iraq has been sponsoring Al Qaeda for a decade - Saddam had the 9/11 hijackers trained.

[algol]

"the the" = "be the"

[algol]

Here's a photo of a Trident (actually two of them). Imagine that horizontal stabilizer (tail) structure detached and lying on the ground to the southeast in the satellite photo. Note that the engine inlets are forward of the wingtips (compare the shadows against the seams in the concrete taxiway).

(Couldn't find a direct overhead view.)

[First_Salute]

Every suggestion on this webpage, for which a top view silouhette can be found, has been overlayed. No matches ... yet.

The Boeing 727-100's wings are at least 15 ft. longer than the "wings" in the "spy pic." Same for the Tupelov 154.

[First_Salute]

Excuse me; make that 5 ft. longer, and that is being very generous.

[apeman81]

Not wishing to lengthen argument, I wish to repeat what I believe to be a salient point in this discussion. The position of the wings in relation to the fuselage matched with the apparent lack of shadow strongly suggest to me that the wings in question are not attached to the fuselage. Rather, they have been placed directly on the ground and the fuselage placed upon them. I don’t think you’ll get a match, because they are not in the correct relative position.
If I am correct, things and fuselage may indeed come from disparate airframes.
However, as far as this relates to possible terrorist training, it is a difference that makes no difference. Failing the ability to obtain a 767 for training, almost any commercial airliner would suit their needs.
The real concern for the hijackers would have been familiarization of close quarter combat in the confined area of such a craft. Additionally, they would concentrate on the various latches, handles, controls, and projections and devices to employ as well potential weapons adaptation of the same.
Any old plane would do. It would necessarily have to be a jet, as someone keeps harping. The old DC-6 Constellation mimics the interior spaces and furnishings of a modern jetliners quite nicely.

[RaceBannon]

Great finds bump!!

[DoctorMichael]

Bump.

[DoctorMichael]

Bump.

[Fixit]

I made this image to help my own tired eyes see what was here. Maybe it will help others as well.

The left side of the image is merely pixel-scaled 400%. The right hand size was resized to 400% with my graphics program's "smart size" function, which interpolates and smoothes. Then I ran a contrast enhancement on the right hand side image.

[Pistolshot]

This may not be an aircraft, but it certainly looks like a mockup of one.
The 'wings', as it were, are in a relative position and mostlikely laying on the ground.
the shadow is at an angle so this gives a distorted view to whatever it could be.
Mockups, like I believe this to be, would have to be rebuilt frequently as using them for training involves some live fire, explosives work, and the ability to move things around to simulate the different interiors of different aircraft.
Just my $.02.

[RaceBannon]

My first thoughts was a MD-80 or BAC-111 or a 727 with one wing missing, this certainly aint no 707

[First_Salute]

Bump.

In the town center, to the northeast and northwest of the circle, there are one each, Saddam Hussien victory arches which are the facsimile of two swords crossed in the air.