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.

 

Did the USAF Help pull off 911?

page: 18
16
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 

Amazing how your own source says that the Pentagon suspended the KC-767 contract and later cancelled it, but you ignore that, and when I talk about it, it`s just my opinion.




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by impressme
 

Amazing how your own source says that the Pentagon suspended the KC-767 contract and later cancelled it, but you ignore that, and when I talk about it, it`s just my opinion.



Oh boy, you still having a problem, I just proved to YOU that our military was still using Boeing 767 as of 911 2001 you are trying to say they were not.
I was not ignoring you or your post why are you so desperate to discrediting me is this your goal on here???

BTW what does cancelling the KC-767 have to do with 911?



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 





YOU sir are so desperate to cover your lies that you have now invented new lies to try and cover your old pathetic lies. Shame on you


Cover my lies? I post your own words showing that you were the individual that first mentioned the "whole" military and IM the one......

My exact words were 'my fellow airmen' in no way, shape or form does that mean the whole military or even the whole Air Force. You introduced the concept into the thread. Try rereading the first page of the thread.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


How hard is it for you to understand that there was exactly ONE 767 being used for any military purposes in the United States, the AOA plane and it was operated by the US Army? And was in storage until it was scrapped two years ago. So, to say that the 767 was in use by the US Air Force, is a lie.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 
Really? Where did you do that? Because out of every one of those listed the only one that was in use in 2001 that could even come close to being said to be used by our military was the AOA, which by the way they called AST. The others weren`t even ordered until after 9/11. The E-767 is only flow by Japan, and there are only 4. The KC-767 has only flown for Japan and Italy, never the US, and it didn`t fly until after 2002. The E-10 doesn`t exist.
Here are the REAL details that you "proved":
AST(AOA): Operated by Boeing for the US Army for tracking missile defense tests. Not owned by the military.
KC-767: Designated KC-767 in 2002, contract cancelled in 2003, never flew for the USAF.
E-767: Delivered in1999 to the Japanese Self Defense Forces. Never flown by the US.
E-10: Protoype built in 2006/2007, project cancelled in 2007, aircraft sold to Bahrain in 2009.
So where again did you prove the US military was using 767s in 2001?


[edit on 12/14/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



Oh boy, you still having a problem, I just proved to YOU that our military was still using Boeing 767 as of 911 2001 you are trying to say they were not.


You are wrong. Repeatedly wrong, in just about every thread. Misreading and selective citations of articles seem to be the rule of the day, here.

But, this is par for the course. ANY little mistake, or let's call it what it is: Outright lie. ANY one of those, and once it gets into the Internet rumour mill, well....Katie Bar the Door!

These lies --- whether intentional or innocent --- are doing incalcuable damage to the search for "truth".



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 

Oh and if the KC-767 was cancelled, that means it was never built. If it was never built, how was or is the Air Force operating them, either now or on 9/11?



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Or, not to confuse an already confued soul, there's the KC-45:



Background


In the late 1990s - early 2000s, the USAF decided to replace its fleet of KC-135s. Initially the first batch of replacements was to be an air tanker version of the Boeing 767-200, which was selected over the Airbus 330-based tanker. Instead of outright purchase, as is the usual practice, the Air Force would lease the 767 tankers from Boeing. In January 2006, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced the cancellation of the KC-767 contract. This followed public revelations of corruption in how the contract was awarded, as well as controversy regarding the original leasing rather than outright purchase agreement. Former USAF Procurement Officer Darleen Druyun and Boeing CFO Michael M. Sears were later found guilty in the corruption scheme. Rumsfeld stated that this move would in no way impair the Air Force's ability to deliver the mission of the KC-767, which was to be accomplished by continuing upgrades to the KC-135 Stratotanker and KC-10 Extender fleets.



Again....the KC-135? Based on the B-707 originally.

The KC-10? Based on the McDonnel Douglas DC-10. Neither airpalne is likely to resemble a B-767 in any way.

The proposed KC-45? Well, two engines, LIKE a B-767. Ooops, though...NOT built in 2001. AND it's based on an AIRBUS A-330!!!

Well, continuing....


KC-X program


In 2006, the USAF released a request for proposal (RFP) for a new tanker aircraft, known as the KC-X RFP, which was updated in January 2007 and was to be selected by 2007. KC-X is the first phase of three acquisition programs to replace the KC-135 fleet.

On 29 February 2008, the Department of Defense announced that it had selected the Northrop Grumman "KC-30" (designated the KC-45A by the USAF) over the Boeing KC-767 for the first stage of the program. On 11 March 2008, Boeing filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for the award of the contract to Northrop Grumman; Following the protest filing, Northrop Grumman and Boeing engaged in media campaigns in support of their tanker aircraft.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Thanks WW. That`s some of the info I was looking for. I hate not being able to copy and paste, but between working all the time and our 6th move in the last year, it`s hard to get on a real computer.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 




Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by impressme
 



The USAF is the only service to operate the 757, and they only bought 4. NO US military operators of the 767 exist.


Did you write this?



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 

I did because it was and is true. The AST was the only 767 affiliated with the US military, but it was a civilian aircraft operated under contract to the military, not owned by the military.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Impressme.
You have been shown to be assuming things that are WRONG.
By people who are experts on the related fields.
Your answer:
Prove to me, that I´m wrong!!
They prove it to you, and your answer:
Show me the evidence where I´m wrong!!
They show you the evidence, and your answer:
That´s only your opinion.
You have been shown to have given YOUR OPINION as facts.
Your answer:
Let´s keep personal opinions to yourselves.

YOU LIED, when you said there are six hidden panic alerts on B757/67
planes.
You have not shown any proof that you are saying something true.
YOU LIED, when you said there is software that over rides pilot error on B757/67 planes.
You have not shown any proof that you are saying something true.
YOU LIED, when you said there was a "stand down" order issued by vicepresident Cheney on 9/11.
You have claimed over and over again that you have prooven this last claim by citing the 9/11 commission report, (which you claim is all lies) and a related video clip of Mr. Mineta where there is NO MENTION ANYWHERE of a "stand down order" given by anybody.
Your answer:
whatever.............................




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Here is two questions: how many of you think that handful of corrupt military pilots using remote controled airplanes, loyal to Dick Cheney and a handful of corrupt officials in the Bush administration planed and carried out 911 also using demolitions expert in our military to blow up the WTC and covered it up by using the FBI to hide and lie about all the evidences.

Question: how many of you believe the OS is true and what “conclusive scientific evidences” that has convince you that the OS is true, and please post sources and links to back your claim.

Still waiting for the OS defenders to answer my questions? Out of 16 pages, not one of them can answer my question, I wonder why? They claim the OS is one hundred percent true, yet they can’t give us any real evidences to support their fairytales.

Here is another questions for you OS believers, is it possible for our government to pull off a false flag operation? If not, state why? This question is safe to use an opinion for an answer.



Sometime we do make mistakes, but to call me a lair???????

I have apologized for my past mistake on this thread, lets move on.

Please answer one of the three questions pertaining to the OP. which all three of you have avoided.


[edit on 14-12-2009 by impressme]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

Here is two questions: how many of you think that handful of corrupt military pilots using remote controled airplanes, loyal to Dick Cheney and a handful of corrupt officials in the Bush administration planed and carried out 911 also using demolitions expert in our military to blow up the WTC and covered it up by using the FBI to hide and lie about all the evidences.


So let us have a look at that in detail.

First the USAF would have had to obtained 2 757's and 2 767's, they would have needed a project management team, a budget, a proposal, funding etc etc. Then they would have had to have a team of personel qualified to service and fly that type of aircraft. And they would have had to ensure the planes had the same wheels, tires and engines as the civilian aircraft that were supposed to have crashed

Then they would have had to painted them to look like American Airlines and United Airlines, with the correct buzz numbers of the aircraft they were meant to represent. Then the remote control gear would have had to be sourced, modified, installed and tested.

Already you have hundreds of people knowing about it. Then the pilots would have had to be trained in flying the jets by remote control, so the jets would all have to made many test flights. Now everyone at the airfield would know about it, including air traffic control etc.

Now the fun really starts. American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 175 and United Airlines Flight 93 somehow took off as normal, but then all landed where the 4 secret "air force" planes were, the passengers and crew were then somehow killed and strapped into the fake "air force" jets, they then took off under remote control and were flown into the WTC towers, the Pentagon and the ground.

Then the remote control gear somehow dissapeared, as nothing was found of it. A few hundred more people must have been involved, to quickly kill everyone on the civilian aircraft and move them to the other aircraft.

Then somehow the 4 civilian aircraft were "dissapeared, and also somehow the Air Force wrote off the 4 fake aircraft - and none of the thousands involved ever questioned any of this, or spoke out against it?

Then we have the demolition experts in another branch of the military smuggling in tonnes of explosives etc into 3 buildings, installing them, and no one who worked there ever noticed the piles of explosives installed in their buildings, or the large team smuggling them in?

And this is what a "truther" thinks could have happened?



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Frankly that is your opinion. I did not make the same claims as you did, in fact I do not even believe in half of what you are saying.


But thanks for taking a stab at it anyway. That was a good way to ridicule it though.



[edit on 14-12-2009 by impressme]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
I did not make the same claims as you did,


Yes you did actually, you said I believe 911 was a false flag operation and a hand full of corrupt Air Force officials and pilots loyal to Dick Cheney flew those planes into the WTC. I do not believe those planes were United or American airlines. I believe those planes came from our military because, they own the same planes Boeing 757,767 and that is a fact.

So once again you get caught out lying!



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 

When are you going to admit you were wrong about the US military operating 767s?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 



I did not make the same claims as you did

Yes you did actually, you said I believe 911 was a false flag operation and a hand full of corrupt Air Force officials and pilots loyal to Dick Cheney flew those planes into the WTC. I do not believe those planes were United or American airlines. I believe those planes came from our military because, they own the same planes Boeing 757,767 and that is a fact.

So once again you get caught out lying!


Some times people make mistake but it doesn’t mean they are lairs. I may have made a mistake that the military owned Boeing aircraft but I am not a “lair.”

BTW my Op is an opinion and don’t forget that.

So if a person makes a mistake it means they are lairs
Is there a rule on ATS that says if a poster has made an erroneous mistake that, he is labeled a LAIR?

That will be enough.



[edit on 15-12-2009 by impressme]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


That would by "liar" not "lair"

And if the shoe fits.....



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



That would by "liar" not "lair"

And if the shoe fits.....


No, the shoe does not fit….
Perhaps before you start showing people how to spell, maybe you should learn to write first.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join