Sunday, July 02, 2006

Jim Fetzer: Time Traveler

I just noticed this from Pat's transcript of the Fetzer interview:

Colmes: Who was in them?

Fetzer: Well, that’s a very interesting question, who was in them. We can explain a lot, without being able to explain everything. My opinion, about those planes, is that they were probably military versions that were refueling tankers of 767s so they carry more fuel.

There is just one problem. The Air Force did not have 767 tankers in September 2001. In fact they still don't have them. There was a plan in 2002 to lease 100 of them, but it was cancelled because of a bribery scandal. The first military to purchase the tanker version of the 767 was the Italian Air Force, and they weren't supposed to get them until 2005:

The first production Boeing 767-200 destined for military tanker duty is scheduled to fly from the Commercial Airplane Group’s Everett, Washington facility to Wichita, Kansas, on July 16, where the company plans to perform the conversion for the Italian air force in time for delivery in 2005. The contract with Italy for four of the airplanes, signed late last year, calls for the delivery of the final three examples to Italian aerostructures builder Aeronovali, which, under the terms of the deal, will assume conversion responsibility.

But hey, you have written 27 books, don't let the fact that something is impossible keep you from making your theory.

35 Comments:

At 02 July, 2006 12:02, Blogger nesNYC said...

Why would the military use its own documented craft in the attack? Why not CIA or another agency we might not know about with this type of clearance? It's pretty doubtful they would leave a paper trail leading right to themselves out in broad daylight like you're assuming would be done.

 
At 02 July, 2006 12:04, Blogger nesNYC said...

My opinion, about those planes, is that they were probably military *versions* that were refueling tankers of 767s so they carry more fuel.

Key words, "military VERSIONS" not actual military craft. You do understand the Pentagon has missing trillions unaccounted for in money and equipment do you?

 
At 02 July, 2006 12:04, Blogger James B. said...

Boeing hadn't even produced them yet genius. And since when did the CIA use tankers?

 
At 02 July, 2006 12:19, Blogger JoanBasil said...

James,
you're arguing something that makes no sense: that the evil people in our government who pulled off the 9/11 attacks tell you the truth about everything else they do.

That makes no sense.

 
At 02 July, 2006 12:24, Blogger Richard said...

Your using a logical falacy. Just because someone does something bad doesn't mean that they always do bad things. I'm really tired of people trying to point out that the government isnt a pure or perfect institution. I'm well aware of that but just because you think a bunch of people are evil that they MUST HAVE caused 9/11 doesn't add up.

 
At 02 July, 2006 12:26, Blogger James B. said...

you're arguing something that makes no sense: that the evil people in our government who pulled off the 9/11 attacks tell you the truth about everything else they do.



So now the Boeing Company is behind it? Damn, I live in Seattle. I may be involved too.

 
At 02 July, 2006 12:29, Blogger Richard said...

It's pretty doubtful they would leave a paper trail leading right to themselves out in broad daylight like you're assuming would be done.

Well isn't that what your assuming whenever you bring up the quote "pull it?" Or mention that the military uses thermate? Or Loose Changes bit about the UAV? All you guys do is speculate on technology thats based on real world stuff. Have any proof that they were militarized 767's?

 
At 02 July, 2006 13:11, Blogger shawn said...

Trillions?! hahaha nesnyc, don't go hyperbolic on us.

 
At 02 July, 2006 13:15, Blogger shawn said...

Your using a logical falacy.

Yup, they're arguing the consequent. "9/11 was an inside job, so obviously they'd lie about anything related to that, so you can't disprove us." It's also circular logic.

 
At 02 July, 2006 13:19, Blogger shawn said...

Why would the military use its own documented craft in the attack?

Well he's arguing that they used military craft that don't exist. It's like saying they flew Auroras into the towers.

It also makes the attack hopelessly complicated and open to a huge margin of error. Instead of suiciding the hijacked planes, you land them, and then send tankers into the towers. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You morons don't even latch on to the "realistic" conspiracy theories.

 
At 02 July, 2006 13:25, Blogger apathoid said...

Nesnyc
Why would the military use its own documented craft in the attack?
Hmmm, lets see, they didnt use commercial airliners and they didnt use their own *documented* aircraft of which they dont have any 767s anyway. Check.
Whose aircraft did they use, every 767 ever built is accounted for unless you think Boeing is in on this? And I think someone might've noticed 2 767s missing......

Here is a list of all 767-200s ever made. I dont see any US goverment owned or leased ships on the list..(and notice the comments about ln #'s 41 and 169)..

It's pretty doubtful they would leave a paper trail leading right to themselves out in broad daylight like you're assuming would be done

Yeah, kinda like it would be dumb to shoot a missile over I-395 in broad daylight during rush hour traffic.....delivery of CIA aircraft delivered from Boeing are not a secret, genius. As James mentioned, what would the CIA be doing with 767 tankers anyway??

Oh, and a paper trail for the delivery of 2 120 million USD aircraft, nahhh.

The CIA paid cash in flew them out the sales lot right then and there..

You guys are making this more stupid by the minute.

 
At 02 July, 2006 13:52, Blogger James B. said...

Let's get this straight. They spent billions of dollars, not mention involving hundreds of workers, to build this assembly line to secretly convert 767s into tankers, just so they can go to all the trouble of disguising them back as the civilian version of the 767 anyway.

Yeah, that makes sense.

 
At 02 July, 2006 14:12, Blogger Chad said...

It's pretty doubtful they would leave a paper trail leading right to themselves out in broad daylight like you're assuming would be done.

But isn't that exactly what you people claim they did with the Northwoods declassification and PNAC? Left themselves out in broad daylight?

Explain that one for me Nessie.

 
At 02 July, 2006 15:38, Blogger Richard said...

Also, if they used "thermate cutter charges" etc to bring the buildings down what is the point of having tankers fly into the buildings? If you guys are so positive that fires and damage to the buildings wasn't enough to bring them down why use even more of that silly stuff called jet fuel? You guys need to take a recess for a few months, gather your "facts" and come up with an official story.

 
At 02 July, 2006 21:55, Blogger nesNYC said...

So now the Boeing Company is behind it?

I'm curious how many "surplus" aircraft got sent to Israel. Does anyone here know for sure or would we run into a "classified" brick wall if we tried to find out?

 
At 02 July, 2006 21:56, Blogger nesNYC said...

So now the Boeing Company is behind it? Damn, I live in Seattle. I may be involved too.

How did you jump to that conclusion, no one here has.

 
At 02 July, 2006 21:59, Blogger nesNYC said...

every 767 ever built is accounted for unless you think Boeing is in on this?

Why are you so sure about this? Didn't I just say the Pentagon had "clerical" errors totaling 2.2 trillion? Why do things need to be spelled out for you? Why can't you figure this out on your own? It’s really not that hard if you use your brain a bit.

 
At 02 July, 2006 22:27, Blogger BoggleHead said...

1) It's physically impossible to make military 767 refueling tankers.

You would need some sort of Manhattan project in order to do that given that these weren't going to become available until 2005, and even then it would be for Italy, a modern industrialized power.

Iran might have a nuclear weapon 5 years from now but that's completely different.

2) You'd have to wildly assume some type of Manhattan project but a twisted version where the only purpose of the thing is to create a destructive power to use against a nation's civilian population.

Like an EVIL Manhattan project. To suggest that multinational defense corporations have the time, inclination or moral apathy necessary to build 767 refueling tankers is the height of tinfoil hat wearing lunacy.

The US Constitution and the UN Human Rights committees would never allow that.

3) This is the crux of the 9/11 debate. If it wasn't a 767 refueling tanker (see 1 and 2) then the entire conspiracy theory falls apart.

 
At 03 July, 2006 00:16, Blogger James B. said...

So now the Boeing Company is behind it? Damn, I live in Seattle. I may be involved too.

How did you jump to that conclusion, no one here has.



Where do you think the Pentagon would get KC-767s 4 years before they were manufactured, WalMart?

 
At 03 July, 2006 00:20, Blogger default.xbe said...

Where do you think the Pentagon would get KC-767s 4 years before they were manufactured, WalMart?

OMGZORS i totally knew walmart had to be in on it too!!!

 
At 03 July, 2006 00:31, Blogger apathoid said...

Nessie
Why do things need to be spelled out for you? Why can't you figure this out on your own? It’s really not that hard if you use your brain a bit.

N'sync, you dont posses either the: a)common sense -or- b) minimal sanity for me to explain to you why Boeing would not make tanker versions(or any other) of a 767 off the books for the government without their being a whistleblower(yes, I know the lack of these people dont phaze you one iota) coming forward.

All 767s are assembled at the Everett Plant in the Boeing Commercial Airplane Division, even military tankers. These aircraft are tracked by line number for effectivity of parts and warranty reasons. Making 2 of these off the books would involve hundreds of assemblers keeping their mouths shut. They would know the airplanes they are buidling are being skipped. Heres an example conversation that would take place many times eventually involving all workers.

"Hey Jimmy, am I going crazy here or is this frame being skipped(looks to his left)- thats ship #1141 there;(looks right)- thats ship #1142, (looks straight ahead) - so is this frame 1141.5?? I dont know Tom, lets look at some placards and find out what the deal is(They look for manufacturing placards showing a line number) Hmmm, the line numbers are blank, oh well, no biggie. Whens lunch??

Nes, I could c/p the mixed line number/ mfg numbers chronologically for every series of 767 ever made showing the US government never took delivery of a single 767 airframe, ever. But that wont satisfy you and your penchant for believing in no evidence theories...

I'm curious how many "surplus" aircraft got sent to Israel.

You cant go one post without waving your swastika, geez.

OK, The only Isreali customer of 767-200s is El Al. All six of theirs are still flying. Heres proof:







All of the above photos were taken in 2005-2006 and the registrations are clearly legible. Check them against the delivery
database. Check for any Israeli goverment deliveries as well(there are none).

Y,see N'sync. This is a factual post with irrefutable evidence that 1)no 767s could be made "off the books" and 2)all Zionist 767s are accounted for and are still flying. Lets see your evidence that Boeing built the government 2 tankers(before the first 767 tanker ever flew). If you dont respond, Ill take that as an acceptance of defeat.

( I know, I know - I said I wasnt going to explain it but I did, some things cant go unchecked)

 
At 03 July, 2006 00:36, Blogger apathoid said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 03 July, 2006 00:39, Blogger apathoid said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 03 July, 2006 00:48, Blogger apathoid said...

Awww fiddlesticks. My list worked in preview but not in the post. Dont worry nes. You can take my word for, all Zionist 767s are still flying......

 
At 03 July, 2006 21:17, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Hey Jimmy, am I going crazy here or is this frame being skipped(looks to his left)- thats ship #1141 there;(looks right)- thats ship #1142, (looks straight ahead) - so is this frame 1141.5?? I dont know Tom, lets look at some placards and find out what the deal is(They look for manufacturing placards showing a line number) Hmmm, the line numbers are blank, oh well, no biggie. Whens lunch??"

Hey Jimmy am I going crazy or did the US government lose ships #1141 and #1142 in clandestine surveillance operations over Iraq?

:-)

 
At 04 July, 2006 04:18, Blogger Alex said...

Hundred million dollar Aircraft don't just go "missing" numbnuts. I suppose you think an aircraft carrier could also go missing tomorrow without anyone noticing.

 
At 04 July, 2006 05:26, Blogger shawn said...

Hundred million dollar Aircraft don't just go "missing" numbnuts. I suppose you think an aircraft carrier could also go missing tomorrow without anyone noticing.

Philadelphia Experiment!

 
At 04 July, 2006 11:03, Blogger CHF said...

another thread, another case of nesnyc spouting off about stuff me knows nothing about...

*yawn*

 
At 04 July, 2006 13:51, Blogger BoggleHead said...

23 helicopters were stolen from the sheriff's department of charlotte county

 
At 04 July, 2006 13:52, Blogger BoggleHead said...

also planes lost in "ongoing operations" are something we get very little information about

especially if the operation is a perpetual war

 
At 04 July, 2006 16:08, Blogger shawn said...

especially if the operation is a perpetual war

Wars tend to end when you win them. Or lose them.

It's a little early to be saying "perpetual" war. I'd put good money on my kids learning about the "war" (really a series of wars) in their history classes. When my dad was born, the Cold War had barely begun and by the time I was old enough to understand it, it had been over for years

 
At 04 July, 2006 16:09, Blogger shawn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 04 July, 2006 18:26, Blogger Richard said...

23 helicopters were stolen from the sheriff's department of charlotte county

Source maybe?

 
At 04 July, 2006 19:48, Blogger apathoid said...

Source maybe?

Your guess is as good as mine. I did a Google search for the missing helicopters. The only sites that talk about this are CT sites. I cant find anything mainstream, it must be a coverup ;-)
I did find some info on the Charlotte County Sheriffs office fleet here
No mention of 23 helicopters(doesnt this seem like an absurdly high number?)

 
At 05 July, 2006 11:37, Blogger Alex said...

"No mention of 23 helicopters(doesnt this seem like an absurdly high number?)"

That's because they crashed those 23 helicopters into the pentagon. You didn't really expect them to talk about that, did you?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home