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.

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

Robert Rice

Mar 7 2008, 10:23 PM

Check out this thread, entirely corroborative of that finding

South Tower Plane Was A Military Drone Aircraft
http://letsrollforums.com/south-tower-plane-military-t16911.html

Why people in the truth movement flat out reject the drone plane evidence, is beyond me..

SPreston

 

OmegaPoint

 

Blast wave, is the only possible explanation. Who cares precisely the how and the what. There was a blast wave, a demolition wave, and therefore, the buildings were intentionally imploded, or in this case, exploded, the first top down explosive demolition of a high rise steel building, with the explanation everyone is supposed to believe, that they simply "collapsed". They were quite obviously taken down on purpose, and the plane strikes and fires were not the actual cause, only the broad daylight "slight of hand" ruse, to create a suspension of disbelief as to the cause of their total destruciton, in the horrified minds-eye of the observing world. That's all that matters. That it was a ruse, the official story about it, a flat out lie. Does it matter the precise mechanism and explanation other than THEY BLEW THEM UP? I don't think so. We've done our job. The sceptics and debunkers, they would like to drag it in that direction, with questions like - when did they wire the buildings for demolition? How many bombs were there? Was it on every floor, or every tenth floor? <said with a shrill wine>

Well, even if every tenth floor, with zero resistence, given the laws of motion, it would still have taken over 30 seconds.

The only possible way they could have come down that fast, is by a blast wave, removing all structural integrity BENEATH the falling debris plume/fountain of building material. Period. That's the only thing that needs to be proven unequivocally and has been proven, and it does not matter where those graphs came from, as they depict the truth and the reality in a very easy to understand, straightforward manner.
http://letsrollforums.com/number-one-smoking-gun-t16540.html

Fascinating research. That is exactly what it looks like on the videos.

SPreston

 

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.

Robert Rice

Mar 16 2008, 10:07 PM

All the technology was in place by 2001. KC-767TT is just a label. The point I believe that's being made, is that the Tanker is simply a modifed or reconfigured Boeing 767, and that it's this type of platform, under remote piloting control, which served as the "plane as missile into building" on 9/11. It need not have had the "KC" label, that argument is moot.

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

AMTMAN

 

SPreston:

You are aware of the fact that the first (EDIT: production) 767 Tanker did not fly until after 9-11? Were you also aware that Boeing just lost the USAF tanker competition to Northrup/EADS?

SPreston

Mar 22 2008, 12:13 PM

AMTMAN

 

SPreston:

You are aware of the fact that the first (EDIT: production) 767 Tanker did not fly until after 9-11? Were you also aware that Boeing just lost the USAF tanker competition to Northrup/EADS?

Yep, sure am. But the concept is still valid. I am also aware that the Boeing 767 was first flown on 26 September 1981 and the first production 767 aircraft was delivered to United Airlines in August 1982. I am also aware that the 767 tanker concept was started in the 1990s, and Boeing started producing test versions in 1999, and the KC767 version for cargo, passenger, and tanker was considered and developed in the late 1990s, and that the US Military received many 767 tankers for testing purposes prior to 2001 and could have easily converted them for use in the 9-11-2001 Shock & Awe attack against the WTC Towers.

AMTMAN

Mar 22 2008, 04:10 PM

SPreston

Mar 22 2008, 12:13 PM

AMTMAN

 

SPreston:
You are aware of the fact that the first (EDIT: production) 767 Tanker did not fly until after 9-11? Were you also aware that Boeing just lost the USAF tanker competition to Northrup/EADS?

Yep, sure am. But the concept is still valid. I am also aware that the Boeing 767 was first flown on 26 September 1981 and the first production 767 aircraft was delivered to United Airlines in August 1982. I am also aware that the 767 tanker concept was started in the 1990s, and Boeing started producing test versions in 1999, and the KC767 version for cargo, passenger, and tanker was considered and developed in the late 1990s, and that the US Military received many 767 tankers for testing purposes prior to 2001 and could have easily converted them for use in the 9-11-2001 Shock & Awe attack against the WTC Towers.

First of all please provide a source and two give some sort of evidence that those aircraft were converted.

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

Popesture

 

I find this image tells the story best...
Looks like the refuelling pipe.

Quote:

 

Click this link to watch clip of Fox news reporter stating live on CNN that aircraft that hit south tower WAS DEFINITELY NOT A COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT. He describes the aircraft as having NO WINDOWS, and a still unknown or explained "blue circular logo"
Not a commercial airline

Quote:

 

Description: My camera was trained on the towers when the second plane came into view. The picture I took of the airplane should be in the repository. As viewed from the north, the plane appeared to vanish. When the building erupted in flame, I still had this "disconnect" in my mind and at first refused to believe the plane I'd just seen hit the building. After a few seconds when the sound wave reached us, it was fairly clear that was what happened.
South Tower 1

Quote:

 

Description: After my first shot of the fireball, I was frozen like I was in a trance. Everything seemed to be happening in slow motion. When the sound wave reached us (it sounded just like in the movies, only not so loud---then again, I was probably 2 miles away)....it brought me back to reality and I snapped this picture.
South Tower 2

Popesture

Mar 23 2008, 04:14 PM

Hmm I just found this image...

Remember the small flashes before the planes hit the towers.

Don't you think the Red Circled object looks like a missile?