High Ranking Military Officers And Airline Pilots Agree That The South Tower Was Not Hit By Flight 1

I came across this.


Startling new revelations about the 9/11 attacks were recently released on The Power Hour radio program.

Col. George Nelson USAF (ret.), who has 30 years of experience identifying aircraft and aircraft parts stated, “The plane that hit the south tower on 9/11 was not United Airlines (UA) flight 175”. After reviewing numerous video clips and photographs of the 9/11 attacks, he concluded, “That was not a commercial airliner. The planes were substituted.” www.thepowerhour.com... This shocking conclusion is also being echoed by other military officers and commercial airline pilots.

Glen Standish, an airline pilot for over 20 years stated, “The plane seen in various video clips of the attack could not have been UA flight 175, due to the extra equipment that appears to be attached to the bottom of the fuselage”.

Link


Did anyone study the pictures of the planes that hit the WTC?. After watching fahrenheit 9/11 this made sense. Did bush rig this to happen?.

I know im a bit late but this information but it is recent and by someone which has experience identiflying aircraft

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: Fixed Link.

[edit on 16/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]

I think it's still interesting after 5 years. All the information does though is it backs up what I've been tninking after I saw those pictures. Those were no commercial airliners that hit the towers and the Pentagon.

Looks like a 767 to me.

Ok , found the guys name its Dennis Glenn Standish, sorry about that. I made an error on my FAA Airman search. My bad, but at least you all know I will admit when I am wrong….

[edit on 12/17/2005 by defcon5]

What extra equipment? I've seen the video clips and pics dozens of times, and the only things I see are the wheel well doors. There are no other planes of a similar size as the 767 that could be confused with the 767. How does he explain the fact that if in fact it was the wrong engine for a 767, the plane that hit looks EXACTLY LIKE a 767?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Looks like a 767 to me.

That's nice, but that's not the issue at hand.

The real question is "Is it United flight 175?" not "Is it a 767?".

So while your one-liner opinion is interesting, it's not really on topic.

[edit on 12/17/05 by redmage]

Sorry, but without explaining where the people are that were suppossed to be on the crashed planes, I can't take any of these speculations too seriously myself.

Regardless of whether or not the perpetrators of 9/11 were who we are told they were, I do not see why it would require using anything other than the commercial airliners that we believe hit the towers. When they start going this far with speculation, they lose all credibility in my book. It just doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by redmage
That's nice, but that's not the issue at hand.

The real question is "Is it United flight 175?" not "Is it a 767?".

So while your one-liner opinion is interesting, it's not really on topic.

[edit on 12/17/05 by redmage]

Actually that IS part of the issue. One of the comments made during this claim that it wasn't UA 175 was that the engine found at the scene was a CFM-56, which he says is not used on a 767. So therefore if the engine found isn't used on a 767 according to him it has to be a different plane replacing the 767 we all saw.

Originally posted by Relentless
without explaining where the people are that were suppossed to be on the crashed planes

Good question, I've often wondered this myself.

The closest "answer" I've found was an early report regarding flight 93 emergency landing in OH, due to a bomb threat, that day.

However, this doesn't explain where "they" are today.

With the patriot act, people can "disapear" in the name of national security though.

Originally posted by Relentless
Regardless of whether or not the perpetrators of 9/11 were who we are told they were, I do not see why it would require using anything other than the commercial airliners

True, however, through research of "Operation Northwoods"; the government has suggested using "commercial" jets rigged as "drones" to commit "terrorist" acts as early as the 1960's so it would not be out of their grasp technologically to pull it off with a "commercial" jet.

Personally, the only thing I'm "sure of", regarding 9/11, is that we were not told the whole truth.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
the engine found at the scene was a CFM-56

If true, that would sugguest it was likely an A320 or a 737(which looks strikingly similar from below).



737 for comparison.


[edit on 12/17/05 by redmage]

The size difference between a 767 and a 737 is very obvious even from below.

Boeing 737:
Boeing 737-600
Length 31.24m
Height 12.57m
Wingspan 34.31m
Tailplane span 14.35m
Passenger seats 110 to 132 passengers
Cargo 20.4m³
Maximum take-off weight 65,090kg
Boeing 737-700
Length 33.63m
Height 12.55m
Wingspan 34.31m
Tailplane span 14.35m
Passenger seats 126 to 149 passengers
Cargo 27.3m³
Maximum take-off weight 70,143kg
Boeing 737-800
Length 39.47m
Height 12.55m
Wingspan 34.31m
Tailplane span 14.35m
Passenger seats 162 to 189 passengers
Cargo 44m³
Maximum take-off weight 78,240kg
Boeing 737-900
Length 42.11m
Height 12.55m
Wingspan 34.31m
Tailplane span 14.35m
Passenger seats 177 to 189 passengers
Cargo 51.9m³
Maximum take-off weight 78,240kg
www.aerospace-technology.com...

Boeing 767
Dimensions
Length 61.37m
Tail height 16.8m
Width fuselage 5.03m
Wingspan 51.99m
Tailplane span 18.62m
Interior cabin width 4.7m
Weights
Maximum take-off weight 204,120kg
Lower deck baggage and cargo capacity 129.6m³ (4,850ft³)
Engines
Maximum thrust -
Pratt & Whitney PW4062 28,173kg
General Electric CF6-80C2B8F 28,804kg
Performance
Range 10,370km
Cruise speed at 35,000ft Mach 0.80, 850km/h, 530mph
Maximum fuel capacity 90,770l
www.aerospace-technology.com...


The 737-900, which was just getting ready to enter production in 2001 is 138 feet. That's the ONLY 737 that even comes CLOSE to matching a 767. The video that shows the first impact showed a good view of it right before impact, and that is definately NOT a 737. The fuselage is WAY too big for a 737, and it's too long.

Satisfied now?

[edit on 12/17/2005 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The size difference between a 767 and a 737 is very obvious even from below.

Maybe to you it's "obvious", but by the nature of your statement, that's only your opinion, not a fact.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The 737-900, which was just getting ready to enter production in 2001 is 138 feet. That's the ONLY 737 that even comes CLOSE to matching a 767.

That's nice, are you saying they used a 737-900 then?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The video that shows the first impact showed a good view of it right before impact, and that is definately NOT a 737.

Flight 175 was not the first impact, it was the second, and hit the south tower.

The make/model of the jet that was involved in the north tower "first impact" has no relevance on the second, they were two separate strikes by two separate jets.

P.S. Nice touch having the specs on the jets being, one in feet and one in meters. Really adds to the clarity.


[edit on 12/17/05 by redmage]

Ok, my mistake then. But they BOTH were 767s. No I'm not saying they used a 737-900. They didn't deliver the first one until summer of 2001. Anyone that has studied aviation can tell the difference between a 737 and a 767, and these pictures have been analysed for four years. If it wasn't obvious that it WAS a 767 then there should have been a ton of people coming forward to say something, or point out that it's not a 767. Considering that the engine picture I saw didn't have enough left to even come close to identifying it, I don't know how he can say that it was a CFM-56.

Fact- The 767 is 30+ feet longer than the 737-800. Fact- The fuselage is SIGNIFICANTLY larger than a 737 (any model). Fact- The engines are much larger on a 767 than a 737 (any model) Fact- The wingspan is 42 feet longer than a 737-800. All of these facts show how easy it would be to tell a 767 from a 737, even from below.

[edit on 12/17/2005 by Zaphod58]

If it was a 737, the landing gear wheels, even in the up position would be visible as two circles from under the aircraft. There are no gear doors on a 737…

In your image from above they are visible toward the rear of the wing, between the engines as two black circles. Those circles should be easily identified on the photo’s we have from 911, and should tell us if these two experts really have a clue about what they are talking about…




As long as we are on the topic, if there was a pod between the Gear bays on a 767, how did the Gear Bay Doors open to retract the landing gear?
If it was on a 737, it would have to be a pretty small pod since there is only about 2 feet of clearance between the gears as well...

[edit on 12/17/2005 by defcon5]

Zaphod58

You do bring up some good points.

Many of these facts are things that most of the eye whitnesses wouldn't know "off the top of their heads", and could have undstandingly mistaken on that day.

As you said, " Anyone that has studied aviation can tell the difference between a 737 and a 767.

Assuming a video or pic is unaltered, ratios of the jets' features could prove what it was that hit each tower.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Considering that the engine picture I saw didn't have enough left to even come close to identifying it, I don't know how he can say that it was a CFM-56.

Is it really that difficult to identify an aircraft engine?

With cars they stamp the "v.i.n." on the engine block, it's own plate, and other areas.

Don't they have similar methods of identification with aircraft engines?

If the engine ID is correct, it does present some interesting physical evidence that something else "isn't quite right" with the official story.

First of all everybody read this: www.questionsquestions.net... It debunks the whole pod thing so well I almost sent money to the writer .


Real 767:





'Supposedly fake' 767:





And as we can see a 767 200 series fits:


external image

[edit on 17-12-2005 by ihatescifi]


I knocked this up in a couple of minutes:


external image

[edit on 17-12-2005 by ihatescifi]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 8/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]

God.

One doesnt have to even study aviation. Just live in or near an aviation center or airport. One can EASILY spot a 767 and a 737 even if they dont know the make numbers.

737s give the impression of being a bit chubbier, perhaps because they are shorter. They are kinda cute .

Honestly. its never been a question in my mind that a 767 hit the WTC. Its who was behind it all.

The only plane that can even come close to be mistaken for a 767 is a 757.

Originally posted by Relentless
Sorry, but without explaining where the people are that were suppossed to be on the crashed planes, I can't take any of these speculations too seriously myself.

Transponders were turned off. I remember there were rumours that there could be 8 planes hijacked. The planes were flying in odd paths and did not hurry directly to their targets. I guess they were somehow directed to a military airport somewhere. The planes didn´t have so many passengers that morning (also strange...). They could all have been moved over into one plane, the plane which later were blown up over Pennsylvania. I know it sounds incredible and cruel, but it could have happened that way.
Operation Pearl