Air Force Two's; Two Much of a Coincidence?

So, here goes craniac launching into more uncharted territory. It is truly rewarding for me to have fellow bloggers from this esteemed body tell me things like "I've never seen that photo before" or ""When you put it that way, I guess it makes sense". I became a truther at roughly 2:00 MST on September 11, 2001. I've poured over every facet of research I could find since then. Some of it is outlandish, some is not mainstream, some is glaringly obvious evidence of criminal wrongdoing and flies directly in the face of the Government Fairy Tale. Some of what I found early on has been scrubbed from the Internet for a very long time. It's great to find a venue to share it in.

You've by now learned that I am NOT a "no planer". I coined the phrase "planes that are lying to us", because there is enough wrong with; how well they were flown, how long they were flown without intercept, and how little we know about them ex-post facto. No airframes were re-constructed, because as the government said, (and I still hear this from official story-clingers): "We all saw the planes hit the buildings" thereby dismissing any need for an investigation, reconstruction, or even any debate about these aircraft.

So, where am I on this topic? You can put me squarely in "Operation Northwoods" territory. If you remember my blog: "MIHOP, LIHOP and CD, you gotta decide", I will never accept that these aircraft wer piloted by undertrained Muslims. Too much would have been left to chance, and the aircraft did not traffic as if they were at the hands of amateurs.

So, Operation Northwoods required the substitution of real commercial flights with drones. I posit the following; I know a lot about aircraft construction and airframe parameters. However, people that I recognize to know far more than me on this topic have presented valid objections to known video and still photos of the aircraft that hit WTC 1 & 2. It's not that there is "no plane", you see, but they don't reconcile what they see and measure in these sources to known dimensions of a 767-200ER. To them, it's not far off, it's just not quite right.

So, if aircraft were substituted, where would they come from, and what model would they be? It's not like the government has a stockpile of civilian aircraft they can raid and go about undertaking the crime of the century with?

Or do they?

Anybody know what a C-32A is? It's the Military version of a 757. We own four of them. They replaced the 707's (aka VC137) that had served as Air Force Two's for many years. Where are the Two's based? Andrews Air Force Base. You know, the one next to the Pentagon. When did the 707's get scrapped and reported out of service?

SEPTEMBER, 2001. That ought to get your attention.

When I learned that the WTC towers had been designed to withstand the impact of a 707, I got to looking into how similar a 707 and 757/767's are. They are more similar than you might think. given the relative difference in age.

Were the 707's modified to carry two dummy engines, thereby looking enough like 767's to get the job done? It's entirely possible. The Air Force will stick a fifth engine on a four engine airframe for tests. They will mix different power plants on the port and starboard engine nacelles for tests. Adding two dummy engines would be a lay up for this crew.

Or, were two of the C-32A's instead painted in civilian colors and fitted with remote control technology?

As always, I welcome any and all comments on my thesis.

From the Boeing "Official Web Site", by the way:

Boeing built four 757-200 aircraft, designated C-32A, to replace the Air Force's aging fleet of VC-137 executive transports. The C-32As carry the U.S. vice president, members of the U.S. cabinet and Congress, and other government officials traveling on government business. The first two C-32s entered operational service in 1998, the final two in early 1999. The fleet is based at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland and is operated by the 89th Airlift Wing.

C-32A-DVD-1106-4_375x300.jpg39.77 KB

yup you got my attention...

When did the 707's get scrapped and reported out of service?

SEPTEMBER, 2001. That ought to get your attention.

Care to share that very interesting piece of info?   

Info came from "Down Under"


I got that gem from the Kiwi Airlines Web site in New Zealand. I post the URL when I get to my office computer.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry

URL for Kiwi Airlines info as promised

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry


It would certainly have been convenient to scrap the decommissioned 707s in this way, but how complicated would it have been to turn them into 2-engine planes? And who would be qualified to do it - It would probably widen the circle of insiders, wouldn't it? Is there reliable data about the fleet the CIA and similar 3 letter agencies maintain?

Keep in mind that the scenario wherein the original planes would simply be taken over via remote control is the least prone to error and potential beanspillers, so it should also be considered.

All this is a little too inviting for speculation, it seems...

PS: Aren't there some distinctions between 707s and 767s, apart from the engine configuration, that would have caught someone's attention already?

A correction needed here


I must first correct myself. I was on my second bottle of vino when I wrote this last night. Yes, two engines would have to have been REMOVED from a 707 to make this work, and two, larger engines mounted on the inboard wing pods. (Oops, that's a scary word here, but that IS what they are called).

And, I am working on some scale models at the moment to see just how different they really are. Some scale models are really quite accurate in dimensions and proportions, and I am going to kit bash a 707 into the closest replica of a 757/767 (those two airframes are kissing cousins, BTW) I can manage, then measure it with calipers, protracters, etc. If any of the members of this community can provide airframe dimensions as a comparision, it would be greatly appreciated. And keep in mind, they won't match exactly, just like the two aircraft that hit WTC 1 & 2 didn't exactly match known dimensions of a 767200ER.

Of course, the easiest switch here would just be to paint the C-32A's in civilian paint schemes. If all four can be accounted for, though, that thesis is a bust. Unless of course there are more than four. Boeing, of course, does not comment on these matters since 9.11.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry

i will look around and see

i will look around and see if I can find a 3d model of a 707 and 757 and spit out a render...  Have to learn how to use these tools by use!

Yea, it's been said they didn't match

I have trouble imagining that airplane enthusiasts shouldn't have found definitive evidence of that by now, though. Still, good luck with your research!

It would be awesome to have data on all the aircraft in the goverment's possession. Is there some public catalogue?

No they don't match . .


No, the airframes don't match, and there is excellent research on the web about it. I'll find the site that had comparisions to 3-D CAD renderings of the 767200ER and the photos, and post it for you. Wing angle to fuselage ratio was wrong, the same for the tail section, wings roots were a little off, etc. If you google around and find it, let me know as well. And the evidence had been announced, just like everything that's been learned about controlled demolition, etc. It just falls into the vacuum of complacency.

As for the government's invenorty of planes, it's much more difficult to get this information than it used to be. As noted, I found the information about the 707's going out of service in Sept. 2001 in New Zealand.

But I'll keep digging if you will!!!

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry

Looking forward to it!

A definitive discrepancy between the alleged and real airframes would pose another rock-solid smoking gun, so it's certainly nothing to sneeze at. Well, I'd be grateful for some more info!

A little more wood on the fire, perhaps


I certainly concur that just taking over the existing flights would have been the least disruptive. However, if what is reported on "Loose Change 2nd" is correct, at least one of these birds was still in service in 2004.

Another thing to note. If you follow that link to Kiwi Airlines, you'll learn that a C-32A is chock full of high tech systems. I know a lot of the alphabet soup that is common nomenclature for these systems, and some of this is new to me. Where I'm headed with this is that it is entirely likely that a showroom-stock C-32A can be flown by remote control. Would make sense, given the high value cargo (VIP's, heads of state, etc.) The technology has existed since the early 80's, and this would be a fail-safe back up to the human pilots, who could be blinded by lasers, sickened or overcome, etc.

Just a thought.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry


all newer aircraft are equipped with the necessary hardware from stock. I don't know for sure, though. The system was called "homerun", If I'm not mistaken...

Two substitutes work for me

I always thought that the "no planes" theory is as outlandish as four planes.

I recall that there was a Spanish investigative reporter who used the photo that was on a 2001 News Day cover and wrote an article about the POD underneath. It even went into how the engines were also moved to act as a counterbalance for the weight distribution. I was impressed. I'm just sorry I didn't save the article.

I also have found out that Boeing has refused to answer any questions that would help identify the aircraft. There doesn't appear to me that the second plane had any windows on the side or even painted to appear to be a passenger aircraft.

The video "911: In Plane Site" points out that a flash appears just prior to impact with the tower on the side with the POD. It also pointed out that the only known film of the first planes impact also showed a flash just prior to impact. I have also learned that the outer skin of passenger aircraft is flimsy.

My thinking is that the 2 planes that hit the two towers were specifically built military aircraft with reinforced skin with things mounted underneath and the engines relocated as counter balance for the extra weight.
Also that the flashes were to ensure that the aircraft would puncture the outer walls so that the entire aircraft would go into the buildings. I don't think that the evil doers wanted any part exposed outside the buildings that could be photographed nor flimsy material to be scrapped off as they entered the buildings that would be picked up for souvenirs in the streets below.

Please post your thoughts, I have been known to be in error.

the flashes were to ensure that the aircraft would puncture...

A question (or two) 

The video (the source of the flash) does not show any EXPLOSION at the point of entry until after:

  1) the east wall has begun exploding and

  2) the 'plane' has completely entered the building.

How then could the flash be used to "ensure that the aircraft would puncture the outer walls"?

Are you suggesting the flash was an exotic weapon which 'melted' the wall?

If you could explain to me, the IT cave man . .


 If you could explain to me how to post a picture into this reply field, I think I have something of interest for all to view. I have been successful at loading images when I initiate a blog, but haven't been able to do so in a reply. When rich text is enabled, I see a place to load the URL of a photo, but how about just an image I have saved in my computer?






"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now" - Patrick Henry

not sure but try

to copy (on a picture, right click and it should be an option) and then paste it directly into your comment.

I think that should work.

[edit- I tried that and it did not work (used to?). just post a link and I can look at the image/video. Thanks.]

try a free image hosting

try a free image hosting site such as or  Once the image is uploaded insert the html code (provided by the image hosting site) into your post...

I went with a new blog on this topic

img, etc:

I chose to start a new blog about this topic. It dovetailed nicely with the post yesterday about the fact that it's time for us to seperate the wheat from the chaff in terms of the videos and still photos from 9.11. If the photo I submitted is genuine, it's one hell of an endorsement for CD and remote planes. If it's not (it was supposed to have come from CNN footage, BTW), it's a great effort by somebody to create a forgery.

We'll see what the 9.11 Blogger community can do to verify or discredit it when it comes up.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry

Not exactly an exotic weapon but

I am suggesting something like a small missile to puncture the aluminum coated steel beams that laced the side of the building which permitted the entire body of the plane to go through.
Rather than take the chance that the nose cone just flatten and go splat on the side of the building upon impact just a little missile to make a small hole so the aircraft to allow less damage to the plane. They wouldn't want the tail or wings falling off.
I've seen pictures of dents in nose cones and damaged wings from hitting birds.
It is also possible that the jet fuel was ignited after each plane was safely inside the building. The second plane almost came out the other side.
Thanks for your feedback.

You are correct, NJ

Both aircraft impacts ARE preceded by a bright flash.

This has been attributed to "static build-up" discharging into the spandrel plates of the buildings from the aircraft. In the instance of the first impact on the North Tower, in my humble opinion it's a hell of a leap for static to travel. In the case of the impact on the South Tower, it's one hell of a bright orange ball of static. Thus, both trouble me for unique reasons.

Excellent analysis of this can be found over at Serendipity, whereby the Naudet footage is magnified, and played at slow and reverse objectives. I don't always agree with stuff on Serendipity, but this stuff should be seen. It's also a tremendous coincidence that both aircraft caused a static discharge. I may continue this thread in coming days with video stills or photos known to be in the public record that display this phenomena. This is another gut check for truthers, you see. When unexplained phenomena occur in unique sources of various video and still photos, the odds of outside manipulation are dramatically lessened. There is a mountain of evidence to digest when you settle in between "no planes" and the governement's version of who and what hit the towers. That's why I coined the phrase "planes that are lying". It's far and away where I am most comfortable, and that's where most evidence points when studied at length.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry

using plane impacts as camoflauge for internal explosions

i think it's that simple, but who knows...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Good thesis


That's an excellent thesis, and one that coincides with precision guided aircraft. If you're planning on an explosion at the designated point of impact, you better be quite certain that IS the point of impact for the jet.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry

the video of th F4 crashing into a 10ft wall

shows the flash as well...

no shit? I gotta see that.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry

note that it is under similar light conditions as the WTC2 strike.

I saw that video the jet was mounted on a cart

and the cart was on tracks which had lights that went on as the jet neared. Also the flash wasn't visible from all the angles that the video shows. The lights were there solely for the purpose of picture taking. .

"Falsehood is never so successful as when she baits her hook with truth and no opinions so fatally mislead us as those that are not wholly wrong." - Charles Caleb Colton

Thanks for the info craniac

If the flashes are a static discharge what is the purpose of the POD that clearly appears on the bottom of the second plane? That is not on any commercial passenger airliner.

There also isn't any visual evidence of an arc that a spark of that size would normally generate. Even the static spark that occurs sometimes depending on rugs and clothing you see the spark and feel.

I'm not comfortable with your "planes that are lying" tag. Those planes tell the truth. It's the missing 4 passenger flights that are the lies but that is another subject for another blog.

"Falsehood is never so successful as when she baits her hook with truth and no opinions so fatally mislead us as those that are not wholly wrong." - Charles Caleb Colton

Remote Airplanes

All commercial airliners are capable of being remotely flown.

I talked to an American Airlines pilot... he told me that the planes basicly fly themselves. The only time that they really take control is when they need to deviate from their pre-programmed flight path...and when they take-off and land.... and they even let the plane do that when the conditions are bad.

These planes simply had to be programmed with the appropriate flight paths to hit the towers... altitude and trajectory and speed..... BOOM!

we know they can take-off remotely....Autopilot all the way....

yep... and though the technology to fly them remotely

existed, it wasn't known to be used on commercial aircraft, though of course after 9/11 they immediately suggested remote takeover as somethign that was being developed as a COUNTERterrorism method--how ironic, eh?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Remote ? Doesn't that imply that

the original flights were faked and/or landed someplace else ? How did the hijackers get off ?

"Falsehood is never so successful as when she baits her hook with truth and no opinions so fatally mislead us as those that are not wholly wrong." - Charles Caleb Colton


If they were even on the planes to begin with..... there were not 19 of them..... and the ones that were involved were in on it.... like everyone else on those planes.... and to be honest.... we don't even know if these people got on the plane.... once you go through security.... there is no one there making sure that you get on the plane.... you can turn around and walk right back out of there and nobody would be the wiser unless the reviewed all the security video covering the exits.

Have we seen the video of any of these people boarding any of these planes?

Remember that these planes were only 20% full on a day when they were normally 80% full.

I guess you would have to understand the mindset of people who are included in operations of this nature.

What are they willing to do? What is their price?

either that or eveyone on the plane was gassed after they turned off the transponders.... as they were instructed to do as part of their drill.