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.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by OrionStars
Have you even looked at the KC-767? Besides the fact that they didn't even FLY until 2005, and NOT ONE plane watcher ANYWHERE, or one airshow ANYWHERE, including Riat, Dubai, and Farnsborough have seen one, there are some SERIOUSLY obvious differences between a 767 and a KC-767. Like the boom under the tail.
Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Zaphod58
A tanker? Gee, if people did not want the world to know technology existed to use the facade of commercial passenger jets as spy planes or missiles, why would they announce to the world that technology? Until it was revealed to the public, by them or someone else. Therefore, just because something is not made public until after the fact, does not mean it was not readily available to use long prior to information release to the public.
Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars
on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’
Good info. Notice where it says, "SLOW-MOVING AIRPLANE" ???
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by OrionStars
I am certain there are aviation forums for people interesting in going into vast detail on the 707 vs 767. This not the forum. The information we need, directly pertaining to both planes, has nothing to do with all the specs of either plane. The plane information we do need has been presented more than a few times. I am not becoming distracted with meaningless red herrings.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh right. YOU can post that it's been around since the 1980s, but anything proving that there's no way that it could have been is a red herring. As for the different models and speeds, that shows quite nicely that there were multiple speeds for the same aircraft. But again, just a red herring. Sure, if you say so.
Did you read what I posted from Les Robertson? He stated nothing should have brought the towers down whether it was a bomb or a "slow moving" plane, whatever slow moving means to him.
If anyone does rapidly accelerate a 767 at close to sea level, that is going to add additional resistance for velocity and velocity impact, and the plane will definitely let the pilot and everyone else on the plane know, how stressed for stucture it is becoming.
Originally posted by thedman
Point is if you intend to smash the aircraft into a building you don't give a
!@#$#% if the airframe is being overstressed by flying too fast at low level or
if the increased vibrations or buffeting is disturibing the passengers
Point is,when the plane is being unduly stressed it cuts the kinetic energy of velocity force being dragged down by weight and mass.
Originally posted by jfj123
So I guess there indeed was "thousands of gallons of fuel".
Did you read what I posted from Les Robertson? He stated nothing should have brought the towers down whether it was a bomb or a "slow moving" plane, whatever slow moving means to him.
Robertson remains deeply affected by the towers’ collapse. “The World Trade Center was a team effort, but the collapse of the World Trade Center is my responsibility, and that’s the way I feel about it,” he told a New Yorker reporter in a Nov. 19 article, “The Tower Builder.”
Originally posted by OrionStars
The spooky part is not any plane parts or contents fell or blew outside either twin tower building on the smoke and flame side, which defies the laws of physics. Although, it was indicative a massive explosion of something very large, with a great deal of carbon based fossil fuel, had indeed taken place, because I saw the evidence of that, from the massive orange flames and dense carbon smoke from the burning of carbon based fossil fuel.