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.

 

Chief 9/11 Mythmaker, Philip D. Zelikow. MUST READ!

page: 4
64
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   
But thank you waypastvne, for raising the issue of the many 9/11 War Games operations which were underway that day.

That was the grid and the theater through which some of the excercise obviously went LIVE, and which simutaneously served as the smokescreen by which to ensure a non-interference pattern over the event, like a shield, and it worked marvelously.

You know, given your posting style and pattern in this thread, to be honest and forthright, I'm beginning to suspect waypastvne, that you are secretly working for our side in this. If so, thank you.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]




posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Well yeah I agree it won t be easily forgetten, but It will be forgetten nevertheless .
I don t think another path could easily have been chosen like you said. Oil is our civilization's blood , they need it to keep their power over the world and every western country and Japan/Korea know this.Maybe in a near future we won t need oil anymore but in 2001 it was really important to secure central Asia because of the coming peak oil.
And more, I will love that all of the truth remain forever on the web but soon you will see, Internet will be Heavily Controlled just like today mainstream media and only ashes will remain just like it as always been.

Only God can save us now.But fighting against them may save your soul.


[edit on 27-9-2009 by Ray Amuro]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   
This quote bears repeating, so it doesn't get glossed over in the thread.



"... if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed even in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security..Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with.."
~ Philip Zelokow, pre-9/11


P.S. This wasn't about oil. Saddam was happily selling oil and the Afhgani's would ahve allowed them to build their pipeline.

The story, is a story about greed and lust for infinite power and a "new world order" via the use of crisis with which to weave "order out of chaos", but it didn't work, it failed, and now the crime itself is available for close inspection and and apprehension - the myth laid bare for what it is, and represents.

In short they failed.

And praise God for that!!! Amen.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Ray Amuro
 


They cannot bring the repository of human knowledge to ashes. No, I have to disagree.

Stop rooting for them.

They lost - the only ashes the dust of the Neocon agenda, as their high wall was breached and their city destroyed, unto dust.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   
well yeah Saddam was happily selling oil in euros, therefore if other countries did the same, petrodollars will be hurt and all American/British empire would have shrunk .So ever wonder why France and Germany Stand up "bravely" against Bush administration? Well If more and more country start to sell their oil in euros, European economy will have access to the american's petrodollars system, a pertoeuros.But German Banking corporations through chirac and Shroder took a dangerous bet and they lost.About Afhganistan it s not only about pipeline, it's about controlling oil reserves and drug production/traffic...
Their New World order failed but not completly they are now trying to repair it...



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   
There is one more thing I would like to say from the platform of this thread.


Love is the answer, and the only one available.


And for those who would disparage the 8/11 Truthers, and what we stand for, and who we stand for (the individual American citizen, and those who were murder on 9/11 and in the wake of 9/11 in their name and yours), consider what Luke Rudowski is putting on the line here, in this video clip, taken just yesterday:


Isn't there a right to "peaceful assembly" enshrined in the US Constitution?


So why not take a stand with us for 9/11 truth..?



Or do you even care?

If you do, then help us to win the information war, the psychological war, in a battle over nothing less than history itself and our prescious individual rights and freedoms, not the least of which is the right to life, and liberty.

We cannot be apathetic about such things, and ASSUME that nothing can be done, no change affected.

So join us and fight the good fight, in peaceful protest and the education of the American public and the world at large, on the RIGHT side of history.

Best Regards,

OmegaPoint

[edit on 27-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
9/11 Prior Knowledge Using Planes As Weapons (MUST SEE!)



[edit on 27-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   
And here is something to consider, regarding the potential difference, that the 9/11 truth movement may have made, not just in terms of public awareness, but behind the scenes..

The following partial list was compiled by taking random snapshot reverse IP lookups, of visitors to a particular 9/11 research forum, one with a partial emphasis on the remotely piloted drone aspect of 9/11.

You'll be amazed at who our readers are, probably here on ATS as well..

letsrollforums.com...



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 



But thank you waypastvne.... You know, given your posting style...


That was uncalled for, and a bit harsh.

If you had any knowledge of that particular member you'd know that he has no axe to grind in this matter. Not even an American.

And, comments about his "cut & paste" are also out of order. He provided sources, he likely doesn't know (yet) the BB codes for external sourcing, and he brounght information THE SAME WAY you did...whilst you accuse him of "flooding" your thread! (See your OP).

Earlier, after i had suggested that the wild "theories" such as holograms, etc, were a disservice, you suggested that you weren't in that particular camp, and appeared to be slightly insulted by an inference.

It wasn't directed to you, per se...I should have been more clear.

HOWEVER, a follow-on discussion about "laser-targeting" nonsense falls right back INTO the category of a "NO-PLANER" mindset...or better siad, sub-set group within the larger set. (Just to be clear, by seriously entertaining such unsupported "theories" as laser-guided missiles attached to commercial jets, it tends to appear that a person is fallling at least into a sub-set of "NO-PLANER" rabbit-hole thinking).

Focus on the target of your OP....the Philip D. Zelikow aspect, because that is likely a strong lead, if you follow it without the other distractions.





[edit on 27 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I think the video offered was a possible source of evidence that the plane itself was a laser guided missile, a plane as missile.

What I find interesting however, is the lack of concern, and scepticism (towards the official story myth) on the part of 'debunkers' or 9/11 truth critics, regarding the appointment of this Zelikow character to head the Commission, and how his study group recommendations, and wishes became reality three years later.

Don't you see any problem with this?

Was the guy a psychic, a prophet, a co-conspirator, or a walking coincidence theory?

There is every reason to question the OCT myth about 9/11, not the least of which is the physical reality of it, and the observable phenomenon that are in plain sight and right before our eyes.

And it's the MYTH about it, which is the ONLY thing preventing the realization, that it's completely false, and that in fact, 9/11 was a HOAX of the most heinous and barbaric and morbid kind.

That some people would read this story, who have SEEN the videos of the destruction of the buildings and STILL hold to the myth, is just beyond me.

Give your head a shake and look at the evidence again. There is nothing wrong with making mistakes, and there is no shame in having been duped by it, for who would expect such a thing, or believe it on face value, because it is so unspeakable, so unTHINKable, but there it is still, right in front of our eys, nevertheless.




posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
HOWEVER, a follow-on discussion about "laser-targeting" nonsense falls right back INTO the category of a "NO-PLANER" mindset...or better siad, sub-set group within the larger set. (Just to be clear, by seriously entertaining such unsupported "theories" as laser-guided missiles attached to commercial jets, it tends to appear that a person is fallling at least into a sub-set of "NO-PLANER" rabbit-hole thinking).

Focus on the target of your OP....the Philip D. Zelikow aspect, because that is likely a strong lead, if you follow it without the other distractions.

[edit on 27 September 2009 by weedwhacker]


No, it does not fall into the "NO-PLANER" mindset at all, and is not a subgroup of anything. Nice try. And that phenomenon does not jive with the notion that it was a piece of paper. First of all, it would be HUGE, and second, it blinks on and off. And while it may not be 100% determinate that it is indeed a targeting laser light spot moving on the face of the south tower, it is worthy of consideration in light of the proofs that the buildings were destroyed with explosives.

How's that, you may ask?

Because if the buildings were destroyed with explosives (which they in fact were), then it's a simple matter of deductive reasoning to conclude that the plane impacts were absolutely neccessary for the entire ruse and hoax, as the fake causal connection. In other words, the plane impacts with the buildings could not be assured unless they were NOT hijacked planes piloted by poorly trained Hani Hanjour types, but instead, remotely piloted drone aircraft, somehow inserted into the sequence of events from the cloud of the theater of the 9/11 War Games operations flying over the North Eastern Seaboard of the United States on 9/11.

There is the myth, as promulgated by Zelikow and his Comission and then there is the reality - exploded buildings, and therefore any evidence regarding the nature of the planes, in particular the south tower plane (since it was recorded from many cameras and angles), which may show that it was NOT flight 175, but a remotely piloted military variant of the Boeing 767, very possible a type of tanker variant ie: gargantuan fireball, then that evidence is worthy of consideration, and like the videos of the twin towers exploding, it is also physical, first hand, recorded in real time eyewitness testimony, namely whoever looks at it.

The lead regarding Zelikow has already been pursued and made available for consumption. He scripted the event, and then covered up the truth as it's principal mythmaker.

And I did offer the only other two explanations for that light spot on the building, a bird or, a piece of paper flying around, but I honestly don't think either of those explanations 'pass muster' (as they might say in the military).

No, proof of controlled demolition, by extension and rational deductive reasoning leads to proof of remotely piloted drone aircraft, so the question then becomes - is there ALSO any evidence that the south tower plane wasn't flight 175 piloted by a Hani Hanjour type Islamist extremist terrorist, and the answer to that is yes, there is some physical evidence which may support that contention also.

The "NO-PLANER" stuff is nothing but a distraction, to distract from valid observations of the south tower plane, attempting to draw anyone who examines it or researches it, into the same "subset" down a "no-planer rabbit hole".

Nice try anyway..

And in closing on this argument, I would like to offer this piece of evidence that the hijackers were NOT on the planes which hit those buildings, and thus showing again, that they were remotely piloted drones.


Originally posted by SPreston
The Satam al-Suqami paper passport was allegedly found by a stranger and handed to a NYPD detective who of course neglected to get the stranger's name and address.

But of course there is no chance it was a 9-11 perp handing over the unblemished paper passport is there?

But the duhbunkers and government loyalists and shills all believe this is a perfectly normal way to gather criminal evidence from complete strangers, and would never suspect an unsinged unburned not even smudged paper passport which just survived an explosive fireball supposedly inside the pocket of an alleged hijacker inside the fuselage of a burning aircraft.

Isn't FAITH just grand? Aren't 9-11 MIRACLES just wonderful?



Larger version

Passport exterior cover



It is reported that the passport of hijacker Satam Al Suqami has been found a few blocks from the World Trade Center. [ABC News, 9/12/2001; Associated Press, 9/16/2001; ABC News, 9/16/2001] Barry Mawn, the director of the FBI’s New York office, says police and FBI found it during a “grid search” of the area. [CNN, 9/18/2001] However a senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission later claims it was actually discovered by a passerby and given to an NYPD detective, “shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.”

source



Planes as remotely piloted drone aircraft, is an inverse probability in fact, to the contention that this passport got out of the pocket of the terrorist on board the plane and fluttered to the ground in near prestine condition.

Could it have been part of the script, introduced to support the narrative, the myth? I think so.

Sadly, Zelikow and those behind the dirty deed aren't concerned about what we make available on these forums, but we've done a pretty good job so far getting this kind of information out and bypassing the MSM in the process.

History will be the judge, and it is fast catching up with the likes of Mythmaker Zelikow.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Well done. Only a moron would believe the official story. I wish I could play Texas Hold'em against people like that. I could bluff them all day.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Great job. great thread.

The truth will set us free.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Roid_Rage27
 


Indeed, almost any amount of rational analysis and scrutiny renders the official story nothing but a fairy tale and a myth (but a powerful one).

Therefore, it will fall in history, and come to serve another purpose altogether, whereby it's power will be retained, just not in the way that the likes of Zelikow and Cheney et all would have envisioned, and unfortunately for them, it will make of them historical monsters, which will surely represent bad karma if there is such a thing and I do believe there is and that not one of us can escape the light of judgement.

But the 9/11 Truth Movement really needs your help. So to all who care, please join us and do whatever you can, however great or small, with whatever amount resources, or lack of, that you can muster.

Each person who can be persuaded to look at the evidence objectively will come on side, and ultimately, history will get this story somewhat straight, and it won't look like Zelikow's myth either, but something more congruent with truth and reality by an infinite degree.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


Nope. "Remotely Piloted Drones" that were 'mistaken' for AA 11 and UA 175 is pure science fiction.

Firstly, you have no comprension of the enormity involved in trying to "retro-fit" a commercial airliner to begin to achieve what you claim.

ALSO, as I will show below, your post here is filled with pure SPECULATION!!! It is not, as you claim "logic".



...which may show that it was NOT flight 175, but a remotely piloted military variant of the Boeing 767, very possible a type of tanker variant...



I tire in repeating what I've already shown, from research, to prove this to be absolutely false.

There was NO "tanker variant" of the B767 in 2001. It was a proposal then...and Boeing was shopping it around, hoping for a big contract with the military. And, they got their hands slapped for some under-the-table dealings....


KNOWN VARIANTS:


...E-767 Military airborne warning and control system (AWACS) version based on the 767 airframe, operated by Japan

B-767 or E-767T-T Combination military transport and tanker based on the 767-200ER with some features of the -300 and -400ER and equipped with a fuselage refueling boom as well as two underwing refueing pods, ordered by Italy and Japan

KC-767 Proposal for a refueling tanker based on the 767-200LRXF offered to the US Air Force


(from aerospaceweb.org)


Military
Versions of the 767 serve prominently in a number of military applications. Most military 767s are derived from the 767-200ER.

Airborne Surveillance Testbed
The Airborne Optical Adjunct (AOA) was built from the prototype 767-200. The aircraft was later renamed the Airborne Surveillance Testbed (AST). Modifications to the aircraft included a large "cupola" or hump which ran along the top of the aircraft from above the cockpit to just behind the trailing edge of the wings. Inside the cupola was a suite of infrared seekers that were used to track theater ballistic missile launches in a series of tests. The aircraft remained in storage at the Victorville Airport in California for a number of years before being scrapped in July 2007.

E-767
Main article: Boeing E-767

The E-767 AWACS platform is used by the Japan Self-Defense Forces; it is essentially the E-3 Sentry mission package on a 767-200ER platform. Japan operates four E-767s.

KC-767
Main article: Boeing KC-767
The KC-767 was developed from the -200ER for the USAF to replace some of its oldest KC-135E tankers. Boeing's tanker was selected and later designated KC-767A. However the Pentagon suspended the contract due to a conflict of interest scandal and later cancelled it.


The KC-767 Tanker Transport, a 767-200ER-based aerial refueling platform has been ordered by the Italian Aeronautica Militare and the Japan Self-Defense Forces, which have designated it KC-767J. For the USAF KC-X Tanker competition, Boeing offered the KC-767 Advanced Tanker, which was based on the in-development 767-200LRF (Long Range Freighter), rather than the -200ER.

E-10
Main article: E-10 MC2A
The E-10 MC2A is a 767-400ER-based replacement for the Boeing 707-based E-3 Sentry AWACS, the E-8 Joint STARS aircraft, and EC-135 ELINT aircraft. This is an all-new system, with a powerful Active Electronically Scanned Array and not based upon the Japanese AWACS aircraft. One 767-400ER aircraft has been produced as a testbed for systems integration. The prototype was sold to Bahrain as a VIP transport in January 2009.


(Wikipedia)

It is important to note the history of the proposed KC-767 tanker variant:


...The Boeing KC-767 is a military aerial refueling and strategic transport aircraft developed from the Boeing 767-200. The tanker received the designation KC-767A in 2002 after being selected by the US Air Force initially to replace older KC-135Es. In December 2003, the contract was frozen and later canceled due to corruption allegations.


en.wikipedia.org...


The lead regarding Zelikow has already been pursued and made available for consumption. He scripted the event, and then covered up the truth as it's principal mythmaker.


SO...but, IF you wish to claim this ONE GUY can cover everything, and make a complete "myth" without anyone else stepping up and saying....?

Well. That's a stretch.

You are convinced of planned demolition....yet on the othr hand (at least) are agreeing that large jets hit the Towers.

NOW...the plausibility of remotely-piloted is very low. Not only the complications required to 'modify' TWO jets, but the incredible difficulty of actually FLYING them remotely, in that manner. Heck....you've got the other camps claiming that they (pilots) couldn't even do it sitting IN the airplanes!!! (Peronally, think that's hogwash...)

BUT, feeling and seeing it from inside is far, far easier than trying to do it remotely.



No, proof of controlled demolition, by extension and rational deductive reasoning leads to proof of remotely piloted drone aircraft...


NO, it does not! See, that is illogical on many levels, since there is NO proof of the planned demo, and NO proof of remotely piloted drones.

ONLY SPECULATION.



And in closing on this argument, I would like to offer this piece of evidence that the hijackers were NOT on the planes which hit those buildings...


Again, the passport as "evidence" to support your speculation. You have no concept of the chaotic nature of an event such as the airplane impacts into the buildings???

Do you also not believe that certain items that belonged to OTHER OCCUPANTS of the airplanes were also found???

Did you research into that?

You see...what is happening here, is a sort of tunnel vision, promoted by slack research, selective "sources", and pure wild speculation, again on the basis of inadequate research.


WHY is it easier for some to believe in the most complex and implausible scenarios, when the simple truth is staring at them?

What I mean is....the incredible numbers of people and resources required to pull all of this together, as some wish to think....well, some just focus on a few aspects (tunnel vision on their pet projects and beliefs) and ignor the rest, and discount any real evidence that contradicts their pet beliefs.

WHILE, what MIGHT be going on under our noses is the cover-up not of some elaborate plan instigated by powers WITHIN the Gov't, but the cover-up (perhaps orchestrated by Zelikow) of the Gov't being incompetent.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint




"Planes hit, the buidlings collapsed. We were attacked."

That is the crux of the story.

Is it really true though..



I once observed a TOP DOWN implosion of a multi-story building (though it was only six floors as I recall). It was done by the Israeli Defense Forces and they were using C-4 on that occasion. Part of a training exercise I believe it was.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Whatthehell?
 


Thank you for your post.

Yes, someone had to do the "wet work" and I doubt very much it was handled by Americans no matter what their affiliation.

Additional research should probe the "Dancing Isreali's" as well as the "Isreali art students" who were hussled back to Israel in the wake of the event.

I understand that the "Dancing Israeli's" were even interviewed back home and indicated that they were there to "record the event".

If I had the time I would provide cites for all of this. Somewhere I read that among the "art students" were demolitions experts.

Before all this information fades into the dustbin of history and gets flushed down the memory hole, some organization needs to catalogue it all for future historians to sift through..



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ALSO, as I will show below, your post here is filled with pure SPECULATION!!! It is not, as you claim "logic".



...which may show that it was NOT flight 175, but a remotely piloted military variant of the Boeing 767, very possible a type of tanker variant...



I tire in repeating what I've already shown, from research, to prove this to be absolutely false.

There was NO "tanker variant" of the B767 in 2001. It was a proposal then...and Boeing was shopping it around, hoping for a big contract with the military. And, they got their hands slapped for some under-the-table dealings....


KNOWN VARIANTS:


...E-767 Military airborne warning and control system (AWACS) version based on the 767 airframe, operated by Japan

B-767 or E-767T-T Combination military transport and tanker based on the 767-200ER with some features of the -300 and -400ER and equipped with a fuselage refueling boom as well as two underwing refueing pods, ordered by Italy and Japan

KC-767 Proposal for a refueling tanker based on the 767-200LRXF offered to the US Air Force


(from aerospaceweb.org)


Military
Versions of the 767 serve prominently in a number of military applications. Most military 767s are derived from the 767-200ER.

Airborne Surveillance Testbed
The Airborne Optical Adjunct (AOA) was built from the prototype 767-200. The aircraft was later renamed the Airborne Surveillance Testbed (AST). Modifications to the aircraft included a large "cupola" or hump which ran along the top of the aircraft from above the cockpit to just behind the trailing edge of the wings. Inside the cupola was a suite of infrared seekers that were used to track theater ballistic missile launches in a series of tests. The aircraft remained in storage at the Victorville Airport in California for a number of years before being scrapped in July 2007.

E-767
Main article: Boeing E-767

The E-767 AWACS platform is used by the Japan Self-Defense Forces; it is essentially the E-3 Sentry mission package on a 767-200ER platform. Japan operates four E-767s.

KC-767
Main article: Boeing KC-767
The KC-767 was developed from the -200ER for the USAF to replace some of its oldest KC-135E tankers. Boeing's tanker was selected and later designated KC-767A. However the Pentagon suspended the contract due to a conflict of interest scandal and later cancelled it.


The KC-767 Tanker Transport, a 767-200ER-based aerial refueling platform has been ordered by the Italian Aeronautica Militare and the Japan Self-Defense Forces, which have designated it KC-767J. For the USAF KC-X Tanker competition, Boeing offered the KC-767 Advanced Tanker, which was based on the in-development 767-200LRF (Long Range Freighter), rather than the -200ER.

E-10
Main article: E-10 MC2A
The E-10 MC2A is a 767-400ER-based replacement for the Boeing 707-based E-3 Sentry AWACS, the E-8 Joint STARS aircraft, and EC-135 ELINT aircraft. This is an all-new system, with a powerful Active Electronically Scanned Array and not based upon the Japanese AWACS aircraft. One 767-400ER aircraft has been produced as a testbed for systems integration. The prototype was sold to Bahrain as a VIP transport in January 2009.


(Wikipedia)

It is important to note the history of the proposed KC-767 tanker variant:


...The Boeing KC-767 is a military aerial refueling and strategic transport aircraft developed from the Boeing 767-200. The tanker received the designation KC-767A in 2002 after being selected by the US Air Force initially to replace older KC-135Es. In December 2003, the contract was frozen and later canceled due to corruption allegations.


en.wikipedia.org...


The lead regarding Zelikow has already been pursued and made available for consumption. He scripted the event, and then covered up the truth as it's principal mythmaker.


SO...but, IF you wish to claim this ONE GUY can cover everything, and make a complete "myth" without anyone else stepping up and saying....?

Well. That's a stretch.

You are convinced of planned demolition....yet on the othr hand (at least) are agreeing that large jets hit the Towers.

NOW...the plausibility of remotely-piloted is very low. Not only the complications required to 'modify' TWO jets, but the incredible difficulty of actually FLYING them remotely, in that manner. Heck....you've got the other camps claiming that they (pilots) couldn't even do it sitting IN the airplanes!!! (Peronally, think that's hogwash...)

BUT, feeling and seeing it from inside is far, far easier than trying to do it remotely.


No, proof of controlled demolition, by extension and rational deductive reasoning leads to proof of remotely piloted drone aircraft...


NO, it does not! See, that is illogical on many levels, since there is NO proof of the planned demo, and NO proof of remotely piloted drones.

ONLY SPECULATION.

For the record, this is what I've presented regarding the contention that the south tower plane was not flight 175 but instead a remotely piloted yes tanker variant, of the B767.


Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Here is a little tidbit of an observable phenomenon which would suggest that the plane which impacted the south tower was some form of re-confirgured tanker aircraft and not flight 175.



Magnified



Setting aside the bulge that some refer to as a "pod", notice, under the tail of the aircraft a small, dark circle.

On the Boeing 767-200, there is no such mark, because on the 200 there is no tail skid protector, and no avionics blade antenna at that location.

There is however, such a mark, or hole to be precise, on the tanker version, from the retracted or removed rear ported refueling boom.



and for those who'll chime in on the history of the KC-767 here, save it, since we know that such developments were under way by 2001 and that it is not outside of the realm of possible or conceivable that a tanker variant prototype of the 767 could have existed, regardless of what the official documents state.

And the result?







www.airforce-technology.com...
DESIGN
The structure incorporates new materials such as improved aluminium alloys, graphite composites and hybrid Kevlar graphite composites, which give enhanced strength, durability and longevity.
The configuration of a commercial 767 for the tanker transport role involves the installation of additional pumps and auxiliary fuel tanks together with the fuel distribution lines below the floor of the main cabin, leaving the main cabin free for cargo, passenger or both cargo and passenger transportation. The concept allows simultaneous refuelling and airlift operations or successive refuelling and airlift missions.
In the cargo configuration, the aircraft can transport 19 standard military 463-L pallets; in the passenger configuration, 200 passengers can be accommodated; and in the Combi configuration ten cargo pallets and 100 passengers can be carried.


What's more - seemingly unaware of such a possibility (tanker Boeing), a group of German Engineers, in conducting an analysis of the sheer magnitude of the fireball and kerosine smoke cloud resulting from the explosion, concluded that the amount of jet fuel on board, would have had to have exceeded, by at least a few orders of magnitude, that which would be contained in the wing-held fuel tanks of a standard Boeing 767-200 fueled for a cross continential trip from Boston to LA.




things that make ya go hmm...

especially in light of the proofs of explosives in the destruction of the buildings, a little over an hour after impact.

You know your planes. Could you please explain for us, in the context of Flight 175, a Boeing-767-222, the phenomenon in question (dark circle under tail)?

Also, there is more than ample proof that the buildings were destroyed with explosives, from a whole host of perspectives, including evidence excessively high temperatures resulting in atomized (spray) steel, evaporating steel, and molten metal, aside from the explosive exjections and near free fall destruction which can be viewed directly simply by watching the videos as well as the voluminous first hand eyewitness accounts of explosions even occuring between the time of plane impact and final destruction.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
4 pages and still no debunkers come to Zelikow's defense! come on,he's your guy surely they would come to the rescue of a fellow "patriot."



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 



Could you please explain for us, in the context of Flight 175, a Boeing-767-222, the phenomenon in question (dark circle under tail)?


What you are "seeing" is an artifact from the still frame capture, it would seem.

Why have you only used THAT one photo, and not any others to "prove" your tanker allegations??

I have shown, and you ignore, the ample evidence that NO KC-767 tankers had been built as of 9/11/2001. They did not exist!!!

Notwithstanding that fact....IF (in an alternate Universe) the KC-767 DID exist...logically they would have removed the re-fueling boom before the "subterfuge" event...you DO Know that the boom can be detached, don't you?

But, that's a moot point. LOOK at other images, try to find a boom or the control vanes on it...you won't.



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join