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.