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.

 

Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Why would Boeing build a prototype before 2001, when the first aircraft wasn't ordered until 2002? You don't build airplanes to test until you have a firm order in hand. You wind tunnel test until you have a firm order in place. Italy was the launch customer for the KC-767, and didn't award the contract until 2002.

It costs a lot to develop a new plane, even a "bolt on" package like the KC-767. You can't just slap a boom on it and call it a tanker. You have to repipe the fueling system, do wind tunnel testing for aircraft flying near it, to make sure it's not going to flip them or something... It's a lot of work, and it's expensive. So there's no way Boeing would have done it without an order in hand.


They probably got the used Boeing at a place like AMARC, and how hard can it be to take out the seats and fill it with stuff, including both incendiary, for the mission itself, and the advanced avionic and remote-piloting hardware by which the operational objective would be realized and assured?


The Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (AMARC) is located outside Tuscon, Arizona; it is an Air Force aeroplane graveyard and a storehouse for spare parts.

The Air Force also uses AMARC to convert discarded planes into remote-controlled drones.

AMARC, the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center

www.public-action.com...




posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Lazarus Short
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 


There is quite a lot of evidence that very powerful explosives demolished the sub-basements of the WTC towers BEFORE the planes struck. Further, if you have the ability to see what you are looking at, squib charges were going off ahead of the collapse. Further, the towers were not merely exploded and/or collapsed, they were "dustified" by advanced weapons which also affected buildings and vehicles for some distance away from the WTC site. We do not know, as yet, the exact nature of the weapons, but we see the effects, and work backwards. In some of the collapse videos, you can see solid steel turn to dust, not just collapse and fall. Do your homework.
edit on 1-12-2013 by Lazarus Short because: dum-de-dum



They were dustified what in the building would create DUST ?

Make a list of what would produce dust, as for steel dustified PLENTY of steel below.

willyloman.files.wordpress.com...

It took a while to move just dust!!!
edit on 1-12-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

wmd_2008
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Your dark circle under the plane looks like a shadow to me!


The self evident proposition I'm putting forward here isn't entirely dependent on that item, but in terms of a type of explanatory "model" within the context of which we're examining the whole event, from the destruction of the buildings to the south tower plane approach through impact, it's a very very curious thing and it seems to appear also in the CNN frame, although in that case there IS shadow, but the plane by then as it impacts the building, is in another location. In that image, magnified, the tail of the plane isn't in shadow, but you're right that it's not conclusive evidence. We're also factoring in other things like the speed and maneuvering of the aircraft through it's approach, along with it's final high-g turn to impact (almost missed) - while also working backwards from the self evident proof of CD.

Best Regards,

NAM


edit on 1-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Except for the fact that the US military has never used 767s. Ever. So why would they be at AMARC to begin with, since that's a military storage facility.

Again, why would they spend millions to prove something that no one knew would ever fly? There was no evidence prior to 2001, that a tanker version of the 767 would ever be approved by anyone anywhere.
edit on 12/1/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Again you've missed the point because it's just a retrofit of an existing Boeing 767 i.e.: take the seats out, add avionics, including remote piloting tech, maybe even hardened structural elements, better engines (note the speed and maneuvering of the south tower plane on approach to impact). It's entirely doable, and they were ready to do all of that with the KC-767, so if they can, there's nothing to say that they did not.

But this proof hangs not on the plane but on the proof of CD, and I'm just offering an hypothesis based on observable phenomenon (1st CD, then, fireball) to suggest that the plane was a swapped-in high performance fuel-air-bomb variant of the Boeing 767-200, with not a soul on board that particular aircraft where what happened to the originating flight 175 is an unknown.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


How did I miss the point? You claimed they could have gotten it from AMARC. The military has no 767s at AMARC, because to this day they don't use them, and won't for several more years. So how did it come from AMARC?

And you seem to think it's a simple thing to do, and could be done by a few people. That just adds a few hundred people to the conspiracy. You have the engineers designing it, the people working on it to do the mods, the people testing it to prove that the new engines aren't going to cause problems.

It's not just a matter of "Let's put new engines" or "let's just put a boom on it". You have to test the hell out of it to prove it's even capable of flying.

That was NOT a military 767 on that day.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I didn't say it came from AMARC, but a place like that.


edit on 1-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: damn typo



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


That was NOT a military 767 on that day.


It had to have been. (see CD evidence presented in the OP).



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


The Boeing 767 wasn't retired until after 2001 IIRC, so there wouldn't have been any in any facility like AMARC or anywhere else. The first 767s hit the storage yards around 2003.

It was United 175 that day.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


It was United 175 that day.


No my friend is wasn't. There was no one on board the plane that impacted the south tower on 9/11, just tons of extra fuel and incendiary explosives and some high tech avionics and remote control piloting hardware.


You're a plane aficionado, right? The plane was clocked at 575-600 mph at 1000 feet altitude. A UA pilot by the name of Capt. Russ Wittenberg, said that he himself who flew the actual flight 175 aircraft, a Boeing 767-22 N612UA, could not have piloted it in the manner observed and that it exceeded that aircraft's performance envelope.


Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot, over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Had previously flown the actual two United airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11.

Article: "'The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S." Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall."

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737s through 767s, it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.


Audio Interview, Capt.Russ Wittenberg, 9/16/04
M3U (download)
RAM (download)
MP3 (plays)

911underground.com...


edit on 1-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


And other pilots have said that they could have. There is a lot more proof that it was 175 than it was anything else.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


There is a lot more proof that it was 175 than it was anything else.


Until you take the time to really examine the proof of CD of the twin towers, and Building 7, by extension.

Then it falls apart and you realize that there was no one on board that aircraft, just lots of extra fuel and incendiary for that shock and awe fireball display to SELL the idea that the plane impacts were the sole cause of the ensuing destruction of the buildings, which did not "collapse" naturally, but were brought down in a wave of explosives from top to bottom to within a few seconds of absolute free fall in nothing but air.


NewAgeMan

Just LOOK!

The buildings, the STEEL buildings..



Went down, from top to bottom, to within maybe three seconds of absolute free fall in nothing but air, alone..





edit on 1-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


So you're fitting your evidence based on your theory, instead of the theory fitting the evidence.

A 767-200 can hold almost 24,000 gallons of fuel. Being the first flight of the day they would have been loaded down so they wouldn't have to refuel before every flight, and might get two flights in between refuelings depending on where they were heading after LAX. That's going to leave a huge fireball.

So where were the passengers, and why is there zero evidence of the planes that took off after the flights going anywhere but to their targets?



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


No one's saying, Wrabbit, that those things didn't happen ie: planes boarded, even hijacked.

See this, from the OP, as to the means and the opportunity while bearing in mind the 9/11 War Games Operations, which involved the very thing that happened and which were "in play" ON 9/11.



Operation Northwood (pdf)
www2.gwu.edu...

Flight of the Bumble Planes
www.public-action.com...


That's all interesting as historical footnotes of things that were in the works ...50 years ago, in the case of Northwoods. However, you've also suggested the planes were not the airliners full of people for the impacts to the towers.

Those planes did take off. If those were not the same aircraft crashing.....?

What happened to them? I need to have some basis to question other aircraft to begin with, before figuring which 'other aircraft' it may have been.

Those still look suspiciously like the airliners I'd expect to see in that footage, to my untrained eyes.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


It's my understanding that they had not only turned off their transponder but were also flying low beneath radar threshold for a time. There was also confusion among air traffic controllers because of the 9/11 War Games Operations that were also underway that day, with one guy exclaiming in a panic "is this real world or simulation?"

And as you know by this post I myself don't and cannot place a whole lot of faith in the Zelikow official story public mythology surrounding 9/11.

Operation Northwoods, along with the "Flight of the bumble planes" hypothesis I offered earlier, explains precisely how such a plane-swapping scenario might be accomplished.


Edit to add:


NewAgeMan

(large size for reading the text) 911anomalies.files.wordpress.com...

9/11 Flight Paths


edit on 1-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


They look suspiciously like the ones I'd expect to see to my eye too. And they were tracked on radar (not well) but they were tracked, and nothing was seen splitting off and flying away, and they weren't seen landing anywhere.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


They never flew low at any point prior to impact. They turned the transponders to different codes, which is what caused the confusion.

The "Is this real world or exercise" wasn't panicked, it was asking for clarification of the call. And it added less than five seconds to the scramble time. There were no exercises going on that would have involved, or affected the alert aircraft that were launched to try to intercept them.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Wrabbit2000

Those planes did take off. If those were not the same aircraft crashing.....?


..they must have swapped in a gap in the radar coverage and/or crossed over with the originating flight(s).

That's why I also included the "Flight of the Bumble Planes" link to give you an idea as to how it must have taken place, once we have deduced that the buildings were demolished from the top down, starting at around the level of impact and descending in an explosive debris wave all the way to the ground to within a mere few seconds of absolute free fall in nothing but air alone.

That's the part of this puzzle that you seem to be missing, as the fundamental premise for this explanatory hypothesis.

What they used was a false play on the Occam's Razor postulate by which to bring off their evil genius plan and operation, but it doesn't really slice in favor of the official story when the actual phenomenon and occurrence of the destruction of the buildings is factored into the overall analysis.

Regards,

NAM



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I've always believed the planes that flew into those buildings were remote controlled.......
And I still do.
Your theory on the plane being a tanker would certainly explain why those flames on impact were so massive.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Ask yourself how a 100+ story skyscraper collapsed into such a compact pile of debris and rubble.

Read and learn:

wheredidthetowersgo.com...







 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join