Why haven't I seen more about the military refuel planes theory?

The man in this clip mentions it, and anybody that talks specifically about the planes brings up the pod at some point, so what I'm really wondering is, is he right? Can somebody show or compare what the refuel planes at that time looked like to what the airliners looked like?

If you don't want to watch the (short) video, he says that the two planes weren't airliners, but military inflight refuel tankers, and that it's plain to see on tv and in pictures.

You mean the 767 tankers that had not even flown prior to 9-11?

reply to post by alaskan

The guy in that video must have watched '9/11 InPlaneSite'. The maker of that film claims that they were KC-767's, and as AMTMAN pointed out, the KC 767 did not exist on September 11, 2001.

ST. LOUIS, May 21, 2005 -- Boeing (NYSE:BA) test pilots took the first Italian Air Force KC-767A advanced aerial refueling tanker on its maiden flight today. Boeing

reply to post by alaskan


You mean pods like this? The "pod" supposedly on the underside of
the 767 actually house the landing gear for the aircraft.

Picture of underside of 767



The pod theory has been debunked for years - hasn't stopped the
mentally challenged from reciting it as proof for their paranoid
fantasties.

And the pics I saw of the aircraft that hit the WTC didn't have any booms on them, either.