SPreston

Mar 4 2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

 

Conclusion:

The measurements make it more than clear:

These were two Boeing KC-767TT airborne refueling aircraft capable of carrying 15,005 gallons of high octane jet fuel in on-board tank.
The wing tanks held nothing compared to the fuselage storage tank which burst and caused the larger fireball in the above image
The KC767TT is an airframe based on the 767-200 and has the identical wingspan of a 767-200 passenger jet - 156’ 1".
The 33 inch decrease from a standard wingspan noted at the impact holes for this type of aircraft was likely caused by the load placed on the vehicle by 101,285 pounds of fuel added inside the fuselage bowing the wings to carry the weight.

Good evidence that heavily loaded military KC767TT tankers hit both WTC Towers as substitute aircraft for the original Flt 175 and Flt 11 commercial passenger jets.

What airplanes actually hit the WTC?

 

Dr. Stefan Grossmann has suggests that Boeing 767-200 aircraft had too short a wingspan and were not the type of aircraft that hit the WTC on September 11, 2001. I disagree with his hypothesis.

We are told that two Boeing 767-200 aircraft hit WTC 1 and 2. I believe they were 767-200 type KC767TT airborne refueling tanker aircraft painted to look like United and American flights. American Airlines tail number 644AA, flight AA11 flew into the north tower (WTC1) between the 94th to the 98th floors in Manhattan at 8:46 a.m. on 9-11. Do the photos support Dr. Grossmans allegation?

Lets use the physical spacing of the perimeter support columns — 40" center to center to geometrically check the imprint of the wings of the destroyed aircraft to compare it with the actual wingspan of a 767-200 commercial jet.

Here is a photo of the north tower impact hole:


Here is a model Dr. Grossman uses (from www.3dcadbrowser.com) of a Boeing 767-200 (pure 2d view, thus no perspective distortion of nose versus wings):
Boeing 767-200

Hole measurements
A does not equal B but may instead be a very inaccurate rescaling of size, a rough calculation yields a wingspan actually shorter than the 767-200

C = 23 columns in length

C = 920 inches x 2 = 1840 inches for calculated wingspan

Wingspan 767- 200 = 1873 inches

Difference: 33 inches less, but well within the error calculation for the span of a 767-200 based on the wing imprint size on the image.

Another calculation of this hole to determine wingspan shows it as 46 columns in distance (length of hypotenuse) or 1840 inches or 33 inches less in length, well within the error calculation (red line is set at the actual port wing tip strike)


Original claim was in error by Dr. Grossmann, this is indeed a hole caused by a 767-200 "type." But the 33 inch less distance in wing span may reveal something else, the curvature angle of the wing loading.

(Note on the wing angle: Airplane wings do not have a hinge at the fuselage where they are rooted. Airplane wings can flex, they flex by ‘bowing’, this decreases the wing span tip to tip distance, perhaps by 33 inches as measured. Each of the two impacting aircrafts on 9-11-1 in Manhattan entered on a descending or level path and not in a situation for significant wing flex but were indeed flexed.

Was this airplane loaded with tanks of fuel? Was it a camouflaged ‘767-200 based KC767TT in flight refueling tanker’ repainted to appear as an American Airlines passenger jet?

In addition, we are told that another Boeing 767-200, tail number 612UA, flight United Airlines 175 flew into the south tower (WTC2) between the78th to the 84th floorsin Manhattan at 9:03 a.m. on 9-11. Do the photos support this allegation?

Here is a photo of the south tower impact hole:
South tower impact hole
D = 23.0 columns in length

D = 920 inches x 2 = 1840 inches

Difference is 33 inches less than a standard 767-200, and well within the error calculation for the span of a 767-200 under load.

Object hanging below fuselage
However, what produced the impact below the fuselage impact?
Was this airplane a camouflaged ‘In flight refueling tanker repainted as a United Airlines passenger jet’ loaded with additional jet fuel in an external fuel tank?

Now look at a still shot of the aircraft prior to impact. Something is hanging off the lower starboard part of the fuselage and the wings are bent upwards as if the aircraft was heavily loaded…
Flt 175 before impact South Tower

This appears to be quite a bit more jet fuel than would be found in a normally loaded 767-200 aircraft combusting outside the building.


Conclusion:

The measurements make it more than clear:

These were two Boeing KC-767TT airborne refueling aircraft capable of carrying 15,005 gallons of high octane jet fuel in on-board tank.
The wing tanks held nothing compared to the fuselage storage tank which burst and caused the larger fireball in the above image
The KC767TT is an airframe based on the 767-200 and has the identical wingspan of a 767-200 passenger jet - 156’ 1".
The 33 inch decrease from a standard wingspan noted at the impact holes for this type of aircraft was likely caused by the load placed on the vehicle by 101,285 pounds of fuel added inside the fuselage bowing the wings to carry the weight.

Specifications 767-200 - basis for KC-767TT
Powerplant

two Pratt & Whitney P&W PW4000 turbofan
or two General Electric GE CF6-80C2 turbofan

Dry weight — 85,595 lbs

Full loaded — 186,880 lbs

Maximum refueling tank capacity = 15,005 gallons Jet A

Provides 20 percent more fuel offload than the KC-135E it replaces

Able to take off with a full load from four times as many runways worldwide (1,100 plus more runways) even commercial airports…………….

Further more, these aircraft are indistinguishable from commercial airliners because the Air force has mandated that windows are standard for multi role, cargo, refueling and military passenger service. They have been sold world wide as shown here in a ‘windowed’ refueling tanker for the French Air Force.


767-200 as the KC767TT

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticleWhatPlanes26Apr2006.html