It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion

page: 15
50
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Salander
post a picture a prove it!


Are you that easily impressed that a picture on the internet proves something to you?




posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

Bull. The Air Force never had a 767 tanker until the KC-46 flew last year. Israel didn't modify any 767s until 2010, for their own use. The first 767 tanker didn't fly until after 9/11.

I have evidence for that. Where's yours to prove your claims?


I can't remember if you are the same poster with whom I discussed the Payne Stewart incident.

Nonetheless, I have been reading the publication called Aviation Week & Space Technology quite faithfully since the mid seventies, fairly well weekly. Obviously, snail mail version, not online, though today the company is really pushing the online version, as they all are.

The controversy and planning for a tanker to replace the various KC platforms, 135 and 10, has been going on since the 1990 decade, perhaps before, and AW&ST covered it often. The 767 was a candidate since it went into service, and a good candidate.

I cannot remember if it was IAI or Elbit or another of the Israeli aircraft modification companies were involved in that, and a batch of about 25 modified 767 were delivered to MacDill in Tampa sometime during the 90's.

As you probably know, Airbus even competed for that aircraft, but at a later date. I think they want to build their version in Mobile.

You may not remember that, but I was reading about it many years ago. Modified 767 aircraft do exist, or at least DID exist, and the likely candidate for what struck the south tower was one of those aircraft.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Total BS pod man



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

The 767 wasn't selected to replace the KC-135 until 2001. No aircraft were delivered before the deal was canceled. The 767 was being considered in the 90s, but no deals were signed until the FY02 budget. They originally were going to lease 100 aircraft starting around 2003 or 2004. The first operator of the KC-767 was Italy, who ordered them in July 2001. They didn't get the first aircraft until 2005.

The first tankers weren't conversions, they were built as tankers from Boeing. There is no way that 25 767s were converted to tankers in the 90s, flown to the US and not a single Aviation site or plane spotter didn't see a single one of them.

If they had been delivered they would have gone somewhere besides MacDill. They would have gone to Edwards, Nellis, or Wright Patterson for testing, before entering service. They would never have gotten over 20 aircraft sight unseen either. They would have gotten 4-5, as they are now, to test on and verify their ability to be a tanker.

I worked a lot of tablets and followed the replacement extremely closely. The Airbus tanker that was competed was for the KC-46 that's the first and only 767 built for the AF.

Again, I can back all this up. Where's your proof? Repeating it doesn't make it true. Oh and where are the rest of them? If they supposedly used 2 on 9/11 where are the others? Why is it that they're only just now getting new tankers if they had over 20 of them 20 years ago?
edit on 3/19/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/19/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

My proof is only that I read it, years ago, in AW&ST. Now it's true that the publication can make mistakes like other human endeavors, but for the most part it's quite accurate.

What you still do not comprehend is that rogue elements within the pentagon, in high positions, WERE involved in the events of 911.

I'm cannot remember if you were the same poster with whom I discussed the Payne Stewart incident months back, but one of the posters here wanted me to believe that a Lear 35 climbing at 250KIAS would take more than an hour to go about 160 nautical miles. Such a claim does not do much for his credibility, so I'm always just a bit skeptical of what I encounter on the web.

I remember reading the stories about the 767 conversion, and they were done in Israel. Whatever hit the south tower was not a stock 767. It makes perfect sense that a converted 767 struck the south tower, and that is supported by the observed wing root fairings and the wrong engine on the sidewalk.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

No the conspiracy theory CLAIMS high rank individuals were involved that doesn't mean it's true.

I mean if conspiracy believers can't see the difference from one building fire to another or that you cant look at consumer video camera footage to analyse the impacts what can they understand

edit on 20-3-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

So your memory is perfect and you are never mistaken. Got it. There were no 767 tankers anywhere in the world until after 2001.

You expect us to believe that over 20 aircraft were converted, sent to an active base and put into service, and no one noticed. They never flew them anywhere that I or anyone else would have seen them, despite there being a desperate tanker shortage that they could have used them for.

And then they take two out of service, fly them into the towers, and the remaining aircraft again vanish, and still haven't been seen, despite thousands of aircraft spotters the world over.

There were over 20 767 sized aircraft, yet no new infrastructure was built, no new large hangars, nothing, and yet these planes just, what, folded up?

If you want to talk credibility, you haven't done wonders for yours, making claims from memory about something you supposedly read 20 years ago. There's no way that many aircraft, that size, on that important a mission have never been seen. Their logistical footprint is huge and there wasn't ever a hint of it anywhere.

edit on 3/20/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/20/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/20/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander




As observers, we know only that it was not a stock 767. It doesn't matter who modified them or where.

Yes it does matter.
It's one of small details that conspiracy believers like to harp on.
There were about 800 767's in existence in 2001.
Four planes can't just drop out of service for modification without many people noticing.
Plane spotters watch airports as a hobby. They log tail numbers.
If 4 commercial aircraft show up at some government hanger people are going to question it.

Conspiracy believers think that all the events that made 911 were done by secret conspirators in a vacuum and no one noticed and the conspirators were too stupid to grasp their part in it.


Is that a fact?

Sounds like you just pick and chose the weakest theories and then lable all those that believe in a conspiracy "silly conspiracy believers", even if they dont subscribe to the weak baseless theories.

I might as well lable all those that believe in the official story to some extent a bunch of bumblimg morons that believe whatever the tv actors tell them to believe.

Im not a simpleton though so I take each members views as individual thoughts. Try it.
edit on pSun, 20 Mar 2016 13:34:47 -05002016 147Sun, 20 Mar 2016 13:34:47 -0500pmAmerica/ChicagoSunday by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

No sir, my memory is not perfect.

No sir, I do not allege those tanker candidates were put into service. I'm saying they were delivered, and they were candidates. I do not know and do not claim that any squadron or other unit was formed and became operational, no, I do not make that claim.

What is certain is that the aircraft that struck the south tower was NOT United 175. It was not a standard 767, so it had to be something else. The engine was not standard and the fairings at the wing root were not standard. Considering the role that Dov Zakheim and others played in the pentagon, a likely candidate would be a modified 767.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And not one person saw them. No infrastructure was ever built for them. No pilots ever claimed to fly them. No pilots ever claimed to refuel from them. IAI claims their first conversion was in 2009. You are wrong.

So what happened to UAL 175 then. It boarded passengers, it departed, it talked to ATC. Where did it go?



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58


So what happened to UAL 175 then. It boarded passengers, it departed, it talked to ATC. Where did it go?


It went into the south tower at the WTC. Huge fireball. Started some office fires.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

According to the above posts that either wasn't UAL 175, or United was flying a heavily modified 767 that no one noticed. So while I know it hit the tower, and you know it hit the tower, I'm curious as to what he claims happened to it since he said it's proven it was modified.
edit on 3/21/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




So what happened to UAL 175 then. It boarded passengers, it departed, it talked to ATC. Where did it go?

You can't expect conspiracy believers to cover all the bases is the large event we call 911.

The best they can do is take one grainy frame and blow it up for amateur analysis.
edit on 21-3-2016 by samkent because: spelling



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MALBOSIA

According to the above posts that either wasn't UAL 175, or United was flying a heavily modified 767 that no one noticed. So while I know it hit the tower, and you know it hit the tower, I'm curious as to what he claims happened to it since he said it's proven it was modified.


I was just being a smart ass Zaphod. It gets under my skin a bit when folks try to argue on behalf of theories that are so easily debunked. Then other members jump in and starting using these theories as a bases to discredit any and all questions that argue against the OS.

Just look at the post below yours. "They" is a powerful word when you are talking about 9/11.
edit on pMon, 21 Mar 2016 14:24:42 -05002016 142Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:24:42 -0500pmAmerica/ChicagoMonday by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I don't know what happened to UAL175, but I do know that neither the government, the media nor yourself can prove that it was boarded. And FYI, the blogger WoodyBox went over ATC records at BOS with a fine tooth comb, and discovered years ago that 2 different calls were made to Ground or Clearance with that call sign, separated by about 10 minutes as I recall.

Things are not always as they appear, is the moral of the story.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander




I don't know what happened to UAL175, but I do know that neither the government, the media nor yourself can prove that it was boarded.

Oh good grief!



At 8.52am, Peter Hanson, who was travelling with his wife and two-year-old daughter, called his father Lee to alert him.
"I think they've taken over the cockpit. An attendant has been stabbed and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines."
At 8.59am, passenger Brian Sweeney, a former US air force fighter jet pilot, tried to reach his wife Julie and left a message on their home answering machine saying the plane has been hijacked.
"If things don't go well, and it's not looking good, I want you to know I absolutely love you," he told her.
He then called his mother Louise, telling her: 'They might come back here. I might have to go. We are going to try to do something about this."
That conversation indicated that the passengers on United 175 were also thinking of staging a revolt, although there is no evidence that they had the time or chance to launch it.
At 9:00, Peter Hanson made a second call to his father.
"It's getting bad, Dad. A stewardess was stabbed. They seem to have knives and Mace. They said they have a bomb. Passengers are throwing up and getting sick. The plane is making jerky movements. I don't think the pilot is flying the plane. I think we are going down. I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building. Don't worry, Dad. If it happens, it'll be very fast. My God, my God."
As the call ended abruptly, Lee Hanson heard a woman's scream. He turned on the television, as had Brian Sweeney's mother Louise. Both watched as a second plane hit the South Tower at 9.03:11.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Here it is 15 years later and you still believe in those impossible cell phone calls? To each his own my friend, to each his own.

Those phone calls are a hoax. With 2001 technology they were impossible, and they are clearly scripted for so many reasons.

The incurious mind is not pretty to behold.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander




Here it is 15 years later and you still believe in those impossible cell phone calls? To each his own my friend, to each his own.

They weren't cell phone calls.
They were seat back air phone calls.

You need to look beyond the wild claims posted on conspiracy sites,



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Whatever blows your skirt Sam. Your willful ignorance is brilliantly displayed.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

air phone recovered from Shanksville PA, Flight 93, wreckage

sites.google.com...

Still want to cling to your fantasy...??




top topics



 
50
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join