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.

 

Clear Image of Flight 175

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Sorry for the double post.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by OrionStars]




posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
What is it that leads you to even consider the possibility that holograms were used?

The lack of significant wreckage to indicate that a plane struck the building is disturbing.

The extreme skill it took to hit the buildings near dead-centre flying under duress, seems a little too perfect for me.

Those two aspects allow me to consider that perhaps something else was responsible, rather than a plane.

Will I know for certain? Probably not. This is a conspiracy website, so I'm prepared to read all viewpoints, provided that they have some supporting evidence. Maybe it was a plane, afterall? I don't know.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Now reply to post by OrionStars
 




Do you have proof of that? Are you privvy to the secret projects of the Pentagon and DOD? If so, can you prove that to be true as well?



Boeing Forms New Organization Focused on 767 Tanker Aircraft Market
ST. LOUIS, March 07, 2001 -- The Boeing Company has formed a new organization focused on providing air-refueling tanker aircraft to military customers around the world.

The 767 Tanker Programs organization is part of the fast-growing Boeing Military Aerospace Support business, which offers comprehensive support products... Source



ST. LOUIS, May 21, 2005 -- Boeing (NYSE:BA) test pilots took the first Italian Air Force KC-767A advanced aerial refueling tanker on its maiden flight today. Source

Named Italy KC-767A#1, the aircraft lifted off from McConnell Air Force Base, Wichita, Kan., and flew for more than one hour, officially beginning its flying and aerial refueling certification test program.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



Then prove that is what I wrote at you say I wrote it. Because I definitely know the difference between the number 4 and the number 1984. You made the false allegation. It is up to you to prove your allegation is not false.


My apologies for making it look like you said 4 years. You did not say it. It took NASA 4 years to develop the aircraft.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Thank you for the apology issued in another post. Much appreciated.

Back to the post to which I am responding.

There is nothing there stating UAV KC-767s were not flown or used prior to 2001. There is nothing that states when the first prototype was successfully tested and used as other than tankers, and done so without public release of information.

There is no proof they were never used in spy missions and passed off as civilian commercial jetliners. The KC-767 is a converted civilian commerical passenger jet for military use as they see fit to use them.

Unless, someone works in high security of the Pentatgon or DOD or Boeing, there is no way of knowing if those planes were used for UAV spy planes or manned tankers or drones etc., and passed off as civilian passenger 767s like any other legitimate civilian passenger jetliner.

Most countries, including those not very friendly but not completely hostile either, are hesitant to shoot down what they think is a civilian commercial passenger jetliner, when they may not have any qualms about immediately shooting down a recognizable military plane in their air space.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 




There is nothing there stating UAV KC-767s were not flown or used prior to 2001. There is nothing that states when the first prototype was successfully tested and used as other than tankers, and done so without public release of information.

There is no proof they were never used in spy missions and passed off as civilian commercial jetliners. The KC-767 is a converted civilian commerical passenger jet for military use as they see fit to use them.



Italy's aircraft became the first KC-767 to be assembled. The aircraft are initially built as 767-200ER commercial airplanes, then flown to a separate facility for conversion into tankers. Italy's first aircraft made its maiden flight on May 21, 2005, and in June the same year, Japan's first aircraft arrived at Boeing's Wichita, Kansas modification center to be fitted out with the tanker equipment. Source.


The first KC 767 built did not offload fuel until spring of this year.

That is the last link I'm going to provide for you.

If you still want to believe that the KC 767 was built and flying before September 11, 2001 that is your choice.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


That citation still does not make your case for you. The technology came from the US, and was developed as far back as at least 1984 for UAV commercial passenger jets. It was successfully tested in 1984 on the Boeing 720 commercial jetliner. They did a successful crash test on that one using remote control. As your citation confirms for me, KC-767s are converted, for military use, civilian commercial passenger jetliners.

Once the technology is developed for one commercial civilian aircraft, it can easily be used in any commercial civilian aircraft. Use of that coverted aircraft can be anything the military wishes to implement. The Pentagon and DOD are not in the habit of telling the public when they develop successful prototypes or use them, when their use may be questioned by the general public, including elected representatives on behalf of their constituents.

You can present citations from now until doomday, but unless you can prove those citations validate your argument, your presentations continue to be circular argument.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
The lack of significant wreckage to indicate that a plane struck the building is disturbing.


The lack of significant building debris is also disturbing, no? Two 110 story buildings of great width fell into a neat 6 story area.

Hardly reason to doubt a plane hit the centers. Something else is afoot.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
As soon as i saw this topic open up i knew it would be segway to missile pods, fuel tankers, holograms, pods and all the other proven disinfo.
but thats the opinion of many and does not reflect a small few.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


It's not really my argument. You are the one saying that a UAV KC 767 could have been used for the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

I have pointed out on three separate occasions that there were no KC 767s in 2001. Not one single KC 767 flew before May 2005.

It does not matter if it was possible to be able to remote fly a KC 767 if there wasn't any!



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


My point was there is nothing that proves they could not have been used, rather than civilian passenger jetlines carrying civilian passengers. It is not impossible. It is legitimately probable all considered in the case of 9/11. Nothing is impossible until proved to be impossible.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Despite all of the arguing back and forth, we still have not resolved a simple question: Where are the people, not only the passengers, but the crewmembers from these flights in question?

Yes, there have been posts on this forum from unsubstantiated sources (I am saying, someone posts a quote from an "outside source"). Where did THAT come from?

The Internet is rife with allegations and assertions that tend to have a life of their own, once posted. A great man once said, 'A Lie can be half-way 'round the world before the Truth has a chance to get its boots on.'

At the airline I used to work for, we could see this in example. You drop a salacious rumor in a city in the Far East, for example, and wait to see how long it gets back to your Domicile, your 'Home Base'. (The rumor dropped had to be something pertinent to the Airline, as in layoffs or acquistions or something...). Less than 24 hours was a common result. It's a little bit like the came 'secret', where you whisper into each players' ear, around a circle, and see how the 'secret' is changed when the final player reveals what he/she thought they had been told.....

The OP of this thread had a great picture, one to stimulate much debate. I admonish all to stay focused, lest we be led astray.....



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


You can say it all you wish. However, simply saying something does not make it a fact. It makes it an opinion until certifiable proof is presented. Nothing is impossible until proved impossible. Your presentation does not prove it was not done. It simply substantiates someone made a public announcement concerning KC-767s, as the person chose to word the announcement and nothing more. It does not say they were not covertly used for purposes other than tanker prior to announcement.

I did say could have been. I did not say were used. That is why I presented the information on when the technology of conversion was done. A poster, in one of the discussions, had stated it was not available prior to 2001 to be used in 767 civilian commercial passenger jetliners. In that discussion, I validated that it was available as far back as 1984. I cited the pertinent excerpt from the article and provided source link for the entire article.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Sure looks like a heavy aircraft to me. There appear to be compression anomalies which leaves room for doctoring possibilities. I seem to remember seeing this still some time ago, but didn't think to much of it. Now that we've been through the hologram debate it's been resurected to try and solidify the "actual planers"(whom I count myself among) veiw of 911. I don't know if this clarifies anything, but good post to create a new thread for debate.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Originally posted by infinityoreilly




Now that we've been through the hologram debate it's been resurected to try and solidify the "actual planers"(whom I count myself among) veiw of 911. I don't know if this clarifies anything, but good post to create a new thread for debate.


Thanks for the post io. I am not sure what you mean by an "actual planers" but if you among those who believe that actual airliners crashed anywhere on 911 your actual authorized nomenclature is "plane hugger".

Hope this helps.

Merry Christmas.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   
This is the way I have approached all events involved in NYC, DC, and PA.

Since the subject is alleged civilian Flight 175, the subject offers a prime example of my approach to investigation of 9/11.

Q. Was alleged civilian Flight 175 actually a civilian flight with passengers and crew members as reported?

A. Who would know since no proof has been forthcoming to either effect.

Q. Could alleged civilian Flight 175 be a covertly converted military drone looking no different than any other civilian passenger jetliner?

A. Yes, it is quite possible. Because I researched that possibility and discovered the technology has been available since at least 1984.

Q. Would a drone explain the lack of any passenger bodies, remains, or luggage?

A. Definitely yes.

Q. Is there any way to prove, after the fact, civilian Flight 175 was indeed civilian Flight 175 or a drone with no passengers?

A. Not at this time. No plane parts to confirm those particular plane parts went specificially with alleged civilian UA Flight 175, no crew member or passenger bodies or remains positively identified, no luggage or parts of luggage to match to any alleged crew members and passengers, including alleged hijackers, on alleged civilian UA Flight 175.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


OrionStars you have U2U.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
reply to post by OrionStars
 


OrionStars you have U2U.


Now you do as well.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Hello,

I think we tend to miss something here, and that is there are people missing, people who were on AA11, for instance.

David Angel was a producer, in Hollywood. He was prominent on the show 'Frasier'. It has been public since September 12, 2001, that Mr. Angel and his wife were booked on AA11.

Another Hollywood name, Mr. Seth MacFarlane, of 'Family Guy' fame, was booked on the AA11. He missed the flight. It's not a mystery, Mr. MacFarlane talks about it on one of the 'Family Guy' DVDs, on the audio track as part of the 'special features'.

The 'Frasier' show paid tribute to the loss of its producer, Mr. Angel, and his wife. Mr. MacFarlane pays tribute to his hangover with saving his life on September 11, 2001.

I don't make this stuff up!! It's there, for all to research....

Go, and make merry!!

[spelling]

[edit on 26-12-2007 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


With all sincere due respect, are we really going to discover where any alleged passengers disappeared from any alleged civilian UA Flight 175, discussing it on this forurm?

No one has seemed to find any plane parts they can prove actually came from alleged UA Flight 175. If then cannot prove there was an alleged plane as reported in the "official" report, how can anyone prove any passengers were on a plane no one seems to have proved actually existed?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join