reply to post by micpsi
I do wish people who don't understand aviation would be a bit more careful. Because, regarding the allegation (made by OP, and on a site that is
allegedly run by OP) of the "KC-767TT" specifically....(it is ON THEIR SITE!).
thedman is absolutely correct (and I thought I had pointed this out too, earlier??). There
were no KC-767s built yet, as of
September 2001. Recall, THAT was the assertion. Specifically.
So, this is a distraction and deflection:
Wrong. You are referring only to the post-2001 KC-767 tanker. There were military variants of the 767 in operation by 2001 and it is perfectly
possible that one version was modified to do the job.
But, hold on a second! You wish to assert that it is "perfectly possible" that one of the...what, one of the AWACS?....was "modified to do the
job"??
On what factual, and evidential basis is that claim made? DO you realize that inventories of assets such as large jetliners are very meticulously
kept? They are well-monitored....by large numbers of civilians and aviation enthusiasts, who make their hobby and past time. Not to mention, the
military has its own strict rules and bureaucracy. Oh, and you should read your own source (Wiki) more carefully. There, to the place you linked,
you will note that ONE variant was built as the "AOA" (later called the "AST") testbed, but that was parked and scrapped, and certainly not used on
9/11!!:
After test flights the aircraft was stored at the Victorville Airport in California in 2003, and ultimately deregistered in 2007 before
scrapping.
The AWACS ("E-767") version?? A total of
FOUR were built, and all bought by Japan. Check to see if they report two of them missing,
about ten years ago?? I think they would have noticed......
en.wikipedia.org...
Sorry, but this is "armchair theorizing", and nothing more. Absent any kind of logical or rational facts and evidence, either.
Furthermore, it gets worse....the "armchair theorizing":
You ignore the possibility that the plane that hit the South Tower was a commercial or military 767 that had been modified to hold extra fuel
in its cargo compartment so as to create an explosion large enough to fool people that the impact and subsequent fires had caused the tower to
collapse.
You truly seem to not realize what you propose there.....seems you think this would have been an "easy" modification?? To "hold extra fuel" in the
cargo areas?? Setting aside, for the moment, that the little bit extra that would fit (after EXTENSIVE and very involved 'modifications') would only
be a slight increase in overall "explosive" energy....it would really just be more "fuel for the fire" (no pun intended).
Setting all of that aside.....it is a simple FACT that United 175 was tracked on radar
continuously, from takeoff at Boston, through the
hijacking and takeover, and then all the way to impact.
Because, the transponder was NEVER set to "standby" (same as "off", for all intents and purposes). That particular hijacker opted to just change the
squawk....thinking (rightly) that it would drop out of the system, that held the flight plan information that was tied to that discrete original
code.
However, ATC were easily able to follow the target, see the transponder code that was displayed even as it was changed (this is all on record.....link
at the bottom) and the transponder continued to transmit in Mode C...so the computers could determine, predict and project its ground track, and
display its altitude, as they do with all transponder-equipped targets.
The photos and videos
clearly show it was a United jet, in United colors. I hope you don't want me to pull out the videos (I've posted
them before) showing how complicated and time-consuming and massive effort required to PAINT a large jetliner?? You don't just pop into an Earl
Schieb auto-body store!!
Flight Path Study - United Airlines Flight 175.
(Page #4 on the PDF).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, almost missed this bit of irony, at the end:
Originally posted by micpsi
You have cherry-picked your facts to suit your argument. This is not scientific.
edit on 5 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)
How can it be an accident??????? 
