If MILITARY plane(s) were what flew into WTC, then how did the real plane(s), passengers perish?

Those on the fringes of Conspiracy Theory groups will say that the Government made them disappear or killed them off seperately.

I don't question the fact that civilian planes went into the WTC and killed everyone on board. I question how they were allowed to get that far without inside help.

reply to post by Sremmos80


The KC-767 (now the KC-46) is not, and never has been a drone. It's a tanker, and the RFP wasn't issued until after 9/11.

Why would you bother developing a tanker/transport as a black project? Aircraft that fly in combat zones are the black projects, not aircraft based on commercial aircraft.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Hi _BoneZ_,

I'm curious about something. While you are convinced, as would most anyone with an open mind, and a rational, scientific approach free from any sort of preconception or bias or even contempt, prior to investigation, who examines the destruction of the twin towers (and building 7), that it was a high precision engineered CD of some kind, initiated from the levels of the buildings around the impact areas (which is easy enough to accomplish) to sell a "gravity collapse" - do you really believe that the planes were the original aircraft, piloted by the hijackers..?!

Personally, i don't think there needs to be any concern whatsoever in regards to the issue of credibility as it relates to the nonsense of the September clueless no-planers, in recognizing that the planes must have been swapped in remotely piloted military drone aircraft, for the entire operation, including the CD of the twin towers, to be successfully accomplished as it was, with the tower hit lower down, across multiple floors and at a higher rate of speed "collapsing" first although hit second, followed by the north tower doing the very same thing in the exact same way from around the 95th floor level, about a half hour later.

I'm sure you understand the issue in regards to the apparent causal mechanism of the twin towers' destruction being the plane impacts, both of which simply had to succeed in reaching their targets, for the entire operation, as a false flag, psy-op, to be "successful".

Regards,

NAM

Sremmos80
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

I only found 1 recording of ceecee on the wiki page and i couldn't make out much, is that the one you are referencing too?

Yes, but you might need to read the thread first, and then listen very VERY carefully, with discernment, volume up, right to the end where she whispers before fumbling around with the phone.

Then you could research the entire cell phone record, to understand the implications and the contextual frame of reference involved, as horrific as it is to be forced to consider and conclude.

The post i linked

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Ya i was in it yesterday, that's when i first listened to it. I got cruddy sound on my laptop with the fan making a constant sound so its hard to hear little things. Ill have to check it out on a desktop

reply to post by Sremmos80


I recommend researching the cell phone record, covered towards the end of part one of the documentary as linked in my signature, to understand and recognize the implications. Then listen to it on a better computer with headphones and the volume turned up. It's rather incredible and somewhat ingenious the way she handled the call and her delivery, for those with what i call the discernment to understand and recognize what's going on, and is it ever heart wrenching. Then to see her belongings supposedly recovered from the flight 93 crash site, in pristine condition.. oh God, please help us to bring about a better world free of this kind of garbage and insanity as "the policy", for the sake of the many victims, like CeeCee Lyles, who delivered her recorded message in a certain way, in the hope that someone might "get it", if not her handlers, then maybe even we ourselves on this day.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Sremmos80

 

The KC-767 (now the KC-46) is not, and never has been a drone. It's a tanker, and the RFP wasn't issued until after 9/11.

Why would you bother developing a tanker/transport as a black project? Aircraft that fly in combat zones are the black projects, not aircraft based on commercial aircraft.

Ok bad example on my part for referencing it as a drone. But the main point I was getting at is just because a military project gets released in said year, doesn't mean it didn't exists before then. And wasn't in use before that as well.

I don't subscribe to the fact that drones were used, but I wont debunk the fact just because there is no "record" per the military of said project.

But that's why i wear a tin hat

reply to post by Sremmos80


The US military are not bound by the same FAA regs as the commercial airlines. They can modify aircraft, including commercial aircraft, like the Boeing 767 series in whatever way they deem necessary, whenever they like. There's no need to prove that a KC-767 MODEL prototype existed prior to 9/11 where that info simply shows what can be done in terms of modifying that kind of aircraft, including more powerful engines, hardened structure (with kevlar, etc), the removal of seats to create room for fuel pallets or other incendiaries.. so for someone to say that there was no KC-767 prototype prior to 9/11, isn't a rebuttal of the notion that Boeing 767's can be modified and militarized including the addition of more advanced avionics and even remote piloting (drone) technology which did exist.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


If the military doesn't fall under FAA rules why is the KC-46 going through FAA certification as part of the acceptance process?

All aircraft that fly in the US are under FAA rules. The military falls under different rules than a civilian aircraft but the FAA is involved.

reply to post by Sremmos80


In some cases you are right. I know of planes that flew in the 80s that are still black. In this case though, no. Transports (especially this fiasco) are developed in the "white world". There is no reason to have a classified development.

This particular program has been quite open, and a total fiasco. The original contract put three people in jail.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Sremmos80

 

In some cases you are right. I know of planes that flew in the 80s that are still black. In this case though, no. Transports (especially this fiasco) are developed in the "white world". There is no reason to have a classified development.

This particular program has been quite open, and a total fiasco. The original contract put three people in jail.

So the idea of a black project drone transport is not possible in your eyes? Or that if they did make one it would be public from the get go?

And does the FAA enforce all the rules it imposes on the military? Or can the military get things by them that they don't need the FAA to see due to "national security"

reply to post by Sremmos80


There will be a black tanker/transport as part of the third tanker replacement program, but that will be a military airframe from the start, not a modification of an existing civilian airframe. You won't see a modification program in the black world.

As for the FAA rules, the military can modify the aircraft somewhat, but the FAA enforces all the rules on the aircraft. They have special ways around black projects without giving away the project.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Sremmos80

 

There will be a black tanker/transport as part of the third tanker replacement program, but that will be a military airframe from the start, not a modification of an existing civilian airframe. You won't see a modification program in the black world.

As for the FAA rules, the military can modify the aircraft somewhat, but the FAA enforces all the rules on the aircraft. They have special ways around black projects without giving away the project.

Well what is stopping that black tanker/transport drone from being in the works in 01? All the tech and money was there. In fact the pentagon couldn't account for 2.3 T of it.

I think the military formally deals with the FAA but do as they please in the safety of the US. They show them what they want to see, not what they need to see. And the FAA is encouraged to make sure everything gets pushed through quietly

reply to post by Sremmos80


If it was it would look nothing like a 767. And the technology for it wasn't developed until later.

reply to post by Zaphod58


It most defiantly could be made to look like a 757. That way you could test it in the public eye with out having to use top secret air frames and the grey area of Northwoods shows that it has be at least thought of in the past.
And drone tech was around in 01... The b17 was turned into a drone in 46... Pretty sure they can do it now.

Zaphod58

If it was it would look nothing like a 767.

That's not true since the following reveals that indeed the Boeing 767 series CAN be modified for military applications.

Tanker Transport Performance, & Pallet Info (which contains the fuel/incendiary)
Note the mention of price difference pointing to the variations in the age of the aircraft, since this was a retrofit build/re-build, either from a new or a used Boeing commercial airliner, which may or may not have windows (for the "combi" variant).

KC-767 Common Widebody Tanker & Transport

www.globalsecurity.org...

The Boeing 767 family of aircraft, specifically the –200C/F, 300C/F and –400C/F models, have been proposed by Boeing as a replacement for the KC-135 family of aircraft, and have been vigorously marketed by Boeing. In terms of offload performance, the proposed Boeing KC-767 modestly outperforms the standard KC-135R. Costs for used 767-300ER aircraft vary between $51M and $88M, depending on the age and condition of the aircraft. In terms of speed its Mach 0.8 performance compares to the Mach 0.85 or better performance of the KC-135 aircraft.

KC-767 aerial refuelling tanker 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.

Standard Military 463-L Fuel Cargo Pallet

"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."

www.inetres.com...

Pallet Dimensions
Width: 108 inches. Length: 88 inches.
Height: 2 1/4 inches.

Pallet Usable Dimensions
Width: 104 inches. Length: 84 inches.

Pallet Weight, Empty 290 lbs
Weight of Nets (side and top) 65 lbs
Maximum Cargo Weight 10,000 lbs
Desired Load Capacity 7,500 lbs
Maximum Gross Weight 10,355 lbs

-------------------



With regards to the fireball and smoke cloud magnitude of the south tower impact, a group of German Engineers led by a line of inquiry completely separate from and therefore presumably unaware of other physical evidence showing that the south tower plane was not UA175, N612UA, as determined by it's flight characteristics and over Vd limit airspeed.

The United Airlines Flight 175 aircraft was a Boeing 767-222 that had been built in 1983, registration number N612UA
en.wikipedia.org...

deduced, that a fully fueled Boeing 767-222 (200, same diff) for a transcontinental flight from Boston to LA, could not possibly have had enough fuel to account for the magnitude of the fire ball(s), even if the vast majority of the fuel and fire was ejected from the confines of the building. But the conclusion they arrived at, even as an approximation, showed it to be larger by many many orders of magnitude than what would ordinarily be possible.

9-11 = False Flag "Shock and Awe" Global Psyop.

-----------

This is NOT to say that the south tower plane was a "KC-767" model, but only as an illustrative example, that indeed the militarization of a Boeing 767 could be accomplished.

Since the plane actually accelerated after it's dive, during a period of level flight, in near sea level air density,

"During the descent from 12,000 feet to 6,000 feet, the aircraft groundspeed remained between 500 - 520 knots. After the aircraft made it's descent to 1000 feet, it accelerated, until it impacted World Trade Center tower #2 at approximately 510 knots groundspeed."

NTSB Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175

the engines must have been more powerful by at least four orders of magnitude, according to many pilots, including celebrated pilot John Lear (who feels so strongly about it that he seemingly can't accept that such a plane was even there to begin with, without considering the possibility of extreme modification). Furthermore, the plane exceeded not only it's Vmo/Mmo of 360knots (under 17,854 ft.) /.86m (over 23,000 feet), by 150 knots, but also it's Vd/Md design dive limit, or the outer flight envelope, by by NINETY knots, whereby the fastest precedents in recorded aviation history, both before or after 9/11, don't even come close the equivalent airspeed reached by "flight 175" as well as "flight 77" which was Vd + 80 (at 500 knots, under the Vd ceiling of 17,854 ft.)

Diagram
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Comparisons:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Ref: TWA 841 and China Air 006

South Tower Plane video of final approach in level flight, while accelerating, to retain a near sea level airspeed of 510 knots (515 knots when the windspeed vector is added to the recorded groundspeed, for a very light wind to the N/W).

www.youtube.com...

Certification flight testing example"
theflyingengineer.com...

reply to post by Sremmos80


I was talking about the one that is yet to come, that is going to be black, not a 767. As for converting a 767, sure it could be done, but you just added another decent sized group of people to the conspiracy, on the conversion team.

reply to post by Zaphod58


How that? Does every department know everything that's going on or what every plane that's being modified is for?

That's an absurd presumption on your part, and a pretty weak strawman argument.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


So they are smart enough to turn a 767 into a remote control aircraft but not smart enough to notice that they are suddenly gone almost immediately after two 767s fly into the WTC, and not put it together?

reply to post by Zaphod58


Not necessarily, you're still making assumptions which don't take into account compartmentalization. The whole it wouldn't be possible because too many people would know and could not keep their mouths shut is a very weak argument which proves nothing.

What was just proven however, is that the plane that impacted the south tower was not and could not have been "flight 175" an old commercial airliner from 1983.

If the official story is proven false based on incontrovertible evidence, that does not require an alternative theory to fill in every gap leftover, it just proves the OS to be false, and not believable within the context of all available information and phenomenon according to the proper use of Occam's Razor.