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.

 

Chemtrail Plane Crashes in California

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Initial witness reports included statements like 'no boom' and '148" diameter fuselage' and 'I didn't know refueling was contracted out.'

This part of my post is pure conjecture because I haven't personally talked to any witnesses who were there but here's what I think...I think that some people thought this was a K135 because that's what has done the refueling and that's why there was surprise about the fuselage and the boom and because, apparently, private contract refueling for the military is not really out on the boulevard.



Why does a plane that loses engines on takeoff and puts it back on the runway, getting damaged in the process but rolling off the end and burning, have to go "boom"? And in your opinion, ,not going "boom" is evidence of what?

There obviously isnt a huge market for private aircraft like that, but the US Navy has no such aircraft anything like this, so thats why they had contracted these to use from time to time.



edit on 18-6-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I think witnesses were surprised to see the mirage of a 42 year old plane miraculously resurrected from the graveyard, reborn as a refueling tanker and fitted with not one but TWO drogue baskets and allegedly glutted to the point of mania with fuel. I'm done here.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Thank God for small miracles



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
I think witnesses were surprised to see the mirage of a 42 year old plane miraculously resurrected from the graveyard, reborn as a refueling tanker and fitted with not one but TWO drogue baskets and allegedly glutted to the point of mania with fuel. I'm done here.


Wow, just wow. The person who made the comments about monsters in the closet, was apparently quite on the mark. You are suspicious because the plane was old, because the interior was removed, and because it can refuel not just one, but two planes at the same time.


I think you would have been suspicious, no matter what it was.




edit on 18-6-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ATSPanzyAssPussies
 


call me crazy, but with your user name, I just don't see you lasting around here. I hope your next attempt is a bit classier.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



Like its sibling, the commercial Boeing 707 jet airliner, the KC-135 was derived from the Boeing 367-80 jet transport "proof of concept" demonstrator, which was commonly called the "Dash-80". As such the KC-135 is similar, but has a narrower fuselage and is shorter than the 707. Boeing gave the future KC-135 tanker the initial designation Model 717.

The initial production Stratotanker was delivered to Castle Air Force Base, California, in June 1957. The last KC-135 was delivered to the Air Force in 1965.

The United States Air Force operated 449 KC-135s (192 active duty, 64 reserve, and 173 guard) as of September 2009.

Source

Looking at the dates mentioned above, the oldest KC-135 would now be 54 years old, while the newest would be 46 years old.

1) The aircraft in question was ONLY 42 years old!

2) It had a VERY similar airframe to one that was built for for the sole purpose of refueling other aircraft while in flight!

3) These airframes have more than proven themselves time, and time again, over the last 54 years!

If you had ANY sense at all, you would see, and accept, the logic in taking a similar (and newer) aircraft, making minimal modifications, and converting it for use as an aerial refueling platform for aircraft that require a "probe and drogue" system. This seems like a perfect "no brainer" to me.

I grew up around these aircraft! What is your experience with them? You don't really need to answer that question, I already know the answer!

It's obvious from your "conjecture", and your reference to the "K135", that you know absolutely nothing about aircraft, or even aviation. There has never been an aircraft built that had the designation of "K135".

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING suspicious about this aircraft! The only thing I find suspicious, is your motivation in sticking to your FALSE claim!

Now go and check your closet again, but don't forget to use a flashlight this time!

See ya, Milt







 
14
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join