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.

 

Something New....767-??? Switch at WTC?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Maybe I am way off on this but people keep saying the military didn't have those planes till well after 9-11. But didn't they have stealth planes years before we knew about them? So is it not possible they had one or more of those planes before 9-11.




posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
The roles they are buying them for are VERY visible roles. The E-10 and KC-767 would have been seen by a lot of people, not to mention that the KC-767 deal wasn't announced until 2003. What reason would they have to keep a simple 767 design secret? The stealths were kept secret for a good reason, so they could surprise people if we went to war. There's no reason to keep a 767 secret.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Not one liking to be flamed...but here goes. I agree that it may not have been a 767-200 that hit....but I also do not believe it was a military variant of a 767 either. But could it have been a 767-300 freighter? This variant has no windows.....some witnesses reported not seeing windows. Check out the 767-300 freighter here:

767-300 Freighter


This variant has been around for some time prior to 9/11/01. Not saying I believe this variant hit the tower.....just adding another possibility.



---warpfactor9



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   
It's POSSIBLE, but even between the 200 and 300 there is a noticable dfference in length. SOMEONE should have noticed before now that it wasn't a 200.

The whole problem though is that at least one of the two flights was tracked all the way on radar, and no radar returns were anywhere near it. So when and how did they replace it?



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Ok, good everyone knows it WASN't a 767-400 that hit it


Now only the -300 vs -400. The plane that hit one of the WTC was N334AA, if you beleive it was a missle; I think you should figure out what really happened to N334AA.

[edit on 4/4/06 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

[edit on 4/4/06 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
Ok, good everyone knows it WASN't a 767-400 that hit it


Now only the -300 vs -400. The plane that hit one of the WTC was N334AA, if you beleive it was a missle; I think you should figure out what really happened to N334AA.

[edit on 4/4/06 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

[edit on 4/4/06 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]


Nobody here is claiming either of the WTC Towers was hit by a missile and not a 767. Photographic evidence SUGGESTS it was NOT a -200 series.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Is there any photo with "trade marks", airline name or something like that of this plane ?



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by STolarZ
Is there any photo with "trade marks", airline name or something like that of this plane ?

I posted this in my previous post (the link - here's the pic)

external image
nineeleven2001.t35.com...


[Mod Edit - resize image, click link above for full size.]



[edit on 4/4/2006 by Umbrax]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

The whole problem though is that at least one of the two flights was tracked all the way on radar, and no radar returns were anywhere near it. So when and how did they replace it?



Good point. I'm a novice at many aspects of civilian aviation but I do have a question. Now when you say that the aircraft were tracked all the way on radar....is this the transponder info being picked up? Was the transponder switched off (lost contact) at any time? If this did happen, I honestly can't remember, then could two different aircraft have identical transponders? One switches off, then the other (replacement 767) switches on and carries on the flight? Remember now...be easy on me....just asking questions.



---warpfactor9



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
The transponders were all shut off after the hijacking. They were tracked using what they call skin paints. The primary radar sets that are used by air traffic control are powerful enough to bounce a beam off the plane and still detect them. It's not as accurate, and it won't give altitude and airspeed data, but it shows where the plane is and where it's heading at least.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Thx. Do you have some photos of "normal" plane from this airlines not from 911 ?



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by STolarZ
Thx. Do you have some photos of "normal" plane from this airlines not from 911 ?

Sure...
United Airlines






posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   
American Airlines





posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   
www.amics21.com...





Who overrode Flight 175's onboard computers?
Modern planes are complicated creatures that incorporate a whole slew of sophisticated technology. First among them, flight computers that instantly override any accidental brusque manoeuvres; you don't want your business-class customers slopping their Dom Perignon over their immaculate suits, just because the pilot sneezes at the wrong moment.

The banking manoeuvre we see here, just as flight 175 is about to slam into the South Tower, would have been overridden by the onboard flight computer. So somebody must have previously overridden the flight computers themselves.






Not claiming any proof here, just more information.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Uhm, no they don't. They mght on a Fly By Wire system, but the 757 and 767 are a link and pulley system. The only thing limiting the manuvers in them is the pilots strength.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Uhm, no they don't. They mght on a Fly By Wire system, but the 757 and 767 are a link and pulley system. The only thing limiting the manuvers in them is the pilots strength.


I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you support this with some proof?



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   
The Boeing 777 is the first plane produced by Boeing with fly by wire. Every plane produced by them before that uses a hydromechanical flight control system. It uses hydraulic fluid and pistons to augment the control movements, so that a pilot doesn't rely solely on how strong he is.


The complexity and weight of a mechanical flight control systems increases considerably with size and performance of the airplane. Hydraulic power overcomes these limitations. With hydraulic flight control systems aircraft size and performance are limited by economics rather than a pilot's strength.

A hydraulic flight control systems has 2 parts:

The mechanical circuit
The hydraulic circuit
The mechanical circuit links the cockpit controls with the hydraulic circuits. Like the mechanical flight control systems, it is made of rods, cables, pulleys, and sometimes chains.

The hydraulic circuit has hydraulic pumps, pipes, valves and actuators. The actuators are powered by the hydraulic pressure generated by the pumps in the hydraulic circuit. The actuators convert hydraulic pressure into control surface movements. The servo valves control the movement of the actuators.

The pilot's movement of a control causes the mechanical circuit to open the matching servo valves in the hydraulic circuit. The hydraulic circuit powers the actuators which then move the control surfaces.

This arrangement is found in most jet transports and high performance aircraft. These include the Antonov An-225, the Lockheed SR-71 and most aircraft in-between.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Further pilot comments: "I seriously question whether these novices could have located a target dead-on 200 miles removed from takeoff point...-- much less controlled the flight and mastered the intricacies of 11FR (instrument flight rules) -- and all accomplished in 45 minutes."

"If there was an AWACS on station over the targeted area, did it have a Global Hawk capability? I mean, could it convert the commercial jets to robotic flying missiles?

"The fact is, all the transponders were turned off on the doomed flights virtually at the same time." Look at their departure times -- two from Logan (Boston), one from Newark, another from Dulles (Washington DC) -- all between 8 am and 8:15."

"We were totally trained on the old type of hijack where you treat the hijacker cordially, punch a 4-digit code into your transponder to alert ground control you're being hijacked, and then get him where he wants to go, set the plane safely on the ground and let them deal with it on the ground. However, this is a totally new situation... Not one of the planes alerted ground control that they were being hijacked." Why?

"I became more convinced that the four commercial jets were choreographed by a "conductor" from a central source, namely an airborne warning and control system (AWACS). They have the electronic capability to engage several aircraft simultaneously, knock out their on-board flight controls by EMP (electro-magnetic pulsing) and assume command and remote control of these targeted aircraft"

Col. Donn de Grand Pre - former top US Pentagon arms salesman

-- reading the above this guy says that the transponders were shut off at the same time and awacs controlled this...

makes sense to me.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Where was the AWACS? There has never been any evidence ANYWHERE that an AWACS was in the area before the hijackings. If there had been then it could have tracked the planes. Notice his use of "IF THERE WAS

They weren't "all turned off at the same time". They were turned off within a small window, but the reason that the planes all took off at similar times, and were hijacked within a few minutes of each other are because it was a planned attack. You don't hijack one plane at 8am, another at 10am, another at 945am. You're going to want to find four flights within a 30-45 minute window, and the hijackings were carried out after the planes reached an altitude where the pilot would turn off the seatbelt sign.

How could the pilots punch in the hijack code if the hijackers broke into the cockpit and killed them almost immediately?

[edit on 4/8/2006 by Zaphod58]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join