September 11, 2001: Interesting and Less Talked About 911 Info!

originally posted by: CheckPointCharlie
elavator world article from 4/11 which certainly offers cover for planting explosives. Again, I'm not claiming this is true, I'm asking "is it possible"? And searching for answers to satisfy my curious mind.

46 new extra-large "shuttle elevators" placed in towers A &B in early 2001---amazing article, and perfect cover.

Osama Bin Laden was the head of the Al Qaeda terrorist group and organized a group of 19 devout religious fundamentalists (who like strippers and coc aine), who were trained to fly in the US. The 19 (several of who are alive per the BBC and the Guardian) boarded four flights on September 11, 2001. They overpowered passengers and the crew, and flew off course for an hour (given or take) without so much as being intercepted by one fighter jet. They crashed into three buildings, toppling three buildings in NYC, and putting a hole in the Pentagon.

Here is a prime example. Yep OBL ran Al Qaeda. Yep, they organized an attack. Where you stray into misleading information is you treat it as if them partaking of pleasures of the flesh was forbidden. Which, is wrong. In their belief system, those on a holy crusade and slated to be martyrs are ALLOWED to do things like that. Or, are you not paying attention to the sex slaves ISIS is actively handing out to their fighters?

Second, you add the tagline about the BBC and the Guardian saying that the hijackers are alive....but, both of those organizations long ago corrected their original stories.

Then, you mention how they fly off course for more than an hour without being intercepted as if that was anything other than normal for our air defense back then.

So yeah, when people like you start stringing together misinformation and outright lies...you deserve to get "gang tackled"

a reply to: Shadow Herder

No, Thierry Meyssan was the creator of the missile at the Pentagon theory. And again, so, what does a "real" investigator think happened?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596

Osama Bin Laden was the head of the Al Qaeda terrorist group and organized a group of 19 devout religious fundamentalists (who like strippers and coc aine), who were trained to fly in the US. The 19 (several of who are alive per the BBC and the Guardian) boarded four flights on September 11, 2001. They overpowered passengers and the crew, and flew off course for an hour (given or take) without so much as being intercepted by one fighter jet. They crashed into three buildings, toppling three buildings in NYC, and putting a hole in the Pentagon.

Show me where the Guardian corrected their story please?

Here is a prime example. Yep OBL ran Al Qaeda. Yep, they organized an attack. Where you stray into misleading information is you treat it as if them partaking of pleasures of the flesh was forbidden. Which, is wrong. In their belief system, those on a holy crusade and slated to be martyrs are ALLOWED to do things like that. Or, are you not paying attention to the sex slaves ISIS is actively handing out to their fighters?

Second, you add the tagline about the BBC and the Guardian saying that the hijackers are alive....but, both of those organizations long ago corrected their original stories.

Then, you mention how they fly off course for more than an hour without being intercepted as if that was anything other than normal for our air defense back then.

So yeah, when people like you start stringing together misinformation and outright lies...you deserve to get "gang tackled"

It's you who lies and misleads, and you know it.

Show me where the Guardian corrected their story please? You constantly ask truthers to prove their claims, and yet you continually make unfounded points. You say the Guardian pulled their story, I want to see proof.

I don't trust you at your word, if you can't provide proof it's just more BS, from your wacky OS conspiracy theory.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Sooooo....going to edit this one since your "source" has been shown to have fooled you? Just curious....

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well what you are obviously not factoring in is... That is because in 2001 it was still in the experimental/prototype stage (already built but still being real world tested and refined) and at this time had yet to adopt the official KC-767 name (at this point it was still being referred to as the Boeing 767T/T).


Spurred on largely by interest from Japan and other nations, concept studies for a 767-based tanker/transport began at Boeing as far back as the late 1980s. Japan's requirements were paced by the need for an airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft and, with the closure of the 707 line following the roll-out of the UK's final E-3D Sentry AWACS in 1991, Boeing focused on the 767-200ER as the obvious successor. Offering twice the floor space and three times the internal volume of the 707-based E-3, the 767 also appeared to be the best option for a next-generation tanker market currently estimate to be worth $10 billion over 30 years.

Definition studies of the new AWACS, designated E-767 by the Japan Air Self-Defence Force, began in December 1991, but it was not until February 1995 that Boeing first officially announced the 767T/T (tanker/transport), which was also aimed at Japan. Although Japan eventually went ahead with the purchase of four E-767 AWACS, which were delivered by the end of 1999, budget pressures continually delayed the formal selection of the 767 tanker until December 2001. A firm contract for the first of up to your aircraft was finally signed in March 2003.

Boeing, meanwhile had put a permanent team in place for preliminary design of the 767 tanker/transport in 1999, and conducted proximity flight tests and widetunnel tests in 2000. In December of that year it submitted a proposal to the Italian air force, which took the lead in the programme by signing a contract in late 2002 for four aircraft.

Building on the work for both Japan and Italy, Boeing focused on a 1990 US Air Force "draft statement of need", which led to the definition of what was to become the KC-767A proposal.
www.flightglobal.com...


So again the short version is the experimental/prototype aircraft I was referring to did exist on September 11, 2001 and had its first flight in 2000 under the name Boeing 767T/T (and was later refined slightly to become to KC-767). By 9/11 all the needed Boeing 767T/T testing was done with the experimental prototype aircraft which made it become rather "dispensable" and so on 9/11 Boeing allowed StratCom to fly the 767T/T as part of a 3nd phase proximity flight test which was being overseen and controlled remotely by Global Guardian 01, which then used the experimental refueler as the swap-out (go-live) for flight 175 just northeast of Stewart Air NGB, followed by crashing it into the South Tower as if it were flight 175, tilting its angle greatly before impact to hide the fact that it didn't have any windows, and had the words EXPERIMENTAL painted in white lettering above the door... Basically something extremely similar to this...
oi57.tinypic.com...

Added: 767 Tanker/Transport (Oct 8, 1997)
The Boeing 767 Tanker/Transport offers cost-effective, multi-mission capability and operational flexibility. Boeing is talking with a number of foreign governments, as well as the U.S. Department of Defense, on the potential of the 767 Tanker/Transport to fulfill their airlift and refueling requirements.

Again interestingly enough the old Boeing page no longer exists for this aircraft.
www.boeing.com...
Oh good old Way Back Machine!
web.archive.org...://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/767t-t/

a reply to: TruthNow88

There wasn't a prototype built in 2001. They used a passenger 767 for proximity testing. As of 2001 the concept was still at the paper stage. They flew proximity tests as a proof of concept, but the first flight of any version wasn't until after 2001.

There weren't even any confirmed orders on 9/11. Boeing isn't going to take up valuable line slots building something with no confirmed orders.

I double-checked it for clarity reasons.

Boeing page : The KC-767 International Tanker.

Customer(s):
Leveraging an unmatched expertise in developing military aircraft from commercial product lines, Boeing is building KC-767s for two major international customers – Italy and Japan – at Boeing Defense, Space & Security facilities in Wichita, Kansas. The first Boeing KC-767A rolled-out of the modification hangar in February 2005, conducted its first flight on May 21, and made its maiden trans-Atlantic flight to participate in the 2005 Paris Air Show.

Two of the Italian Boeing KC-767A aerial refueling tankers made history in mid-December 2008 when they were used to successfully transfer fuel from one to the other during a test flight over northern Kansas. This marked the first time a KC-767 tanker has itself been refueled by any aircraft. The Italian Air Force is acquiring four KC-767A aerial refueling aircraft as replacements for its fleet of 707 tankers.

The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) KC-767J was originally contracted for in 2003. The first Boeing 767 arrived in Wichita in June 2005 for modifications into a KC-767J Tanker and conducted its first flight on December 21, 2006. The first two tanker aircraft were delivered in the first quarter of 2008. The third KC-767J tanker was delivered to JASDF on March 9, 2009. The fourth KC-767J was delivered to the Itochu Corp., Boeing’s Japan partner, in December 2009 and transferred to JASDF in the first quarter of 2010. All four delivered Japan KC-767 tankers have achieved Initial Operational Capability and been assigned to an active air wing in the JASDF.

The two bolded by me texts are at first sight not conclusively confirming each other.
However, the first one is a KC-767A, and the second one is a KC-767J. Where the "J" probably stands for Japan.
Still, that is a confusing statement by Boeing. They probably modificated the A-type into the J-type in that period from June 2005 to December 2006. It's not at all important for TruthNow88's initial tanker theory however.

web.archive.org...
www.boeing.com... (Fill this link in at the Web.Archive Homepage.)

That was the by TruthNow88 posted KC-767T-T link from the WayBack Engine site. It says at the end :

Boeing is talking with a number of foreign governments, as well as the U.S. Department of Defense, on the potential of the 767 Tanker/Transport to fulfill their airlift and refueling requirements.

To still try another candidate for the TruthNow88 tanker-theory, the only other one that comes to mind from that time frame is :

web.archive.org...
www.boeing.com...

The KC-135 Stratotanker. Many still existed in 2001.
That one however, has 4 jet engines, not 2 like the 767 types.

That puts he swapped tanker theory to rest ?