It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"flying pill" and the WTC

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Has this been discussed yet? Debunked?

Link.

Just curious what people are saying about this...

EDIT: BTW, I'm not so interested in the chemtrail aspect, but rather the aircraft itself. Any thoughts?

[edit on 9-8-2006 by loam]




posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   
You've got to be kidding me.

I'm rather disappointed in you, Loam, I thought that you were smarter than that.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Well it all ties into Chemtrails which are another topic all to them selves eh? The whole thing doesn't make sense to me, we saw the plane hit the tower what is that thing and why is it flying away important to the events that unfolded? What are the possible connections.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You've got to be kidding me.

I'm rather disappointed in you, Loam, I thought that you were smarter than that.





See edit above....I wasn't quite clear enough. (..and you posted before I could explain...
)

[edit on 9-8-2006 by loam]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I was actually going to only say...

"lol...did you run out of enviro-alerts?"

Seriously, this is, well, shameful.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
C'mon...people...I think my history speaks for itself...


I am, however, interested in the photo of the aircraft. What is that thing? Is the photo a fake?

(Oh, and thanks for the enviro alert jab...
Unfortunately, I have plenty more where those come from.... *sigh* )

Also, can anyone determine the source of this photo?



[edit on 9-8-2006 by loam]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You've got to be kidding me.

I'm rather disappointed in you, Loam, I thought that you were smarter than that.



I'm not sure what to make of the craft, but.. honestly.. ^^^^^^^^
Disappointed in someone, because YOU thought they were more intelligent.. why should someone elses intelligence matter to you? Loam must be a powerful God to have created such disappointment in you... Why do people judge peoples education? its education that stands in the way of actual observation. Relation is our downfall.

I am sorry to say but I am disappointed(not actually) in you HowardRoark for allowing someone else to create your mood. I understand what you meant by it.. .... . .. . but why can we not talk about ridiculus things? stupid and silly, unbelievable things? They are things too... Everything holds SOME truth to it.. and we need to remember it isn't the message, its the meaning.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

(Oh, and thanks for the enviro alert jab...
Unfortunately, I have plenty more where those come from.... *sigh* )


I earnestly hope so...that's how I keep up with what is currently killing me! (only kidding because it makes the delivery funnier - otherwise, I'm serious)



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
does anyone have a link to an .mpg of the actual footage. we can find out if its faked or not, although i doubt there is much to 'find out'. you would think we would remember another plane in the air.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
personally, i wouldnt think anything of it. the picture is obviously taken as the second plane is hitting the tower. at that point, they hadnt started grounding everything yet. from the looks of it, it's another aircraft at a much higher altitude. but thats just MHO.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
you would think we would remember another plane in the air.


Exactly! I don't remember seeing this photo before either.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
personally, i wouldnt think anything of it. the picture is obviously taken as the second plane is hitting the tower. at that point, they hadnt started grounding everything yet.


I agree, but help me out with something...


Originally posted by snafu7700
from the looks of it, it's another aircraft at a much higher altitude. but thats just MHO.


Does the aircraft appear to be descending? Where is LaGuardia or Kennedy in relationship the the orientation of the WTC buildings in the photo? Was it normal for commercial aircraft to be in the area this picture suggests?

[edit on 9-8-2006 by loam]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Does the aircraft appear to be descending? Where is LaGuardia or Kennedy in relationship the the orientation of the WTC buildings in the photo? Was it normal for commercial aircraft to be in the area this picture suggests?

[edit on 9-8-2006 by loam]


let me first say that i dont work the NY area, and i am not that familiar with it. however, it does look like an aircraft with its landing lights on, which is normal procedure within a terminal area (area surrounding major airports). i cant really tell from the blurred pic if the aircraft is descending or not, but considering that there are three major airports within a few miles of each other in that area (kennedy, la guardia, newark), i would say that there is nothing abnormal about the aircraft being where it is. but like i said, that is simply MHO based on what little i do know about that area.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   
well kennedy and laG are literally 30 seconds away. shea stadium is almost a stones throw from LaG and from there manhattan is 30 seconds of flying, if not less
same with newark, and his distance doesnt seem to disturbing to me.
judging by how small the plane looks hes pretty far away, probably not even directly over manhattan which in that case is not abnormal.

for all we know he could have been heading to one of the 3 airports and could have been redirected to another

[edit on 9-8-2006 by blatantblue]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
The "pill plane" in the link, is simply a normal plane with the picture taken from a long distance.

The plane in the WTC pic APPEARS to be a Delta flight (I saw a bigger picture of it, and while blurry, the colors APPEAR to match a Delta paintjob), and is either coming out of, or going into one of the many nearby airports. It appears to just be a normal, everyday, routine flight.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   
The most simple answer, usually is it. The picture is taken as the second pane hits. There were no Eveybody Land Now Orders Yet ! Why is it so strange to see this plane.?..... Answer; it isn't!...............................Ther's Ur Sine!


PS
This is Ooooold debunked stuff folks!

[edit on 10-8-2006 by Duhh]



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 07:11 AM
link   
The holographic orb thing would be nearly impossible to debunk, unless it could be shown that the images were edited, which could be nearly impossible in itself. Kind of reminds me of major religions.

There is a problem with a third plane hanging around the WTC, though.

Check out this paper from 9/11 Scholars:


No mention of a large, commercial-class aircraft loitering in the restricted airspace of lower Manhattan during the strikes on the WTC towers will be found in the 9/11 Commission Report. It does not appear in any version of the Official Story. It is largely unknown even in critical studies of 9/11. Yet substantial evidence exists to support its presence coincident with the attacks, actually orbiting in close proximity to the towers for several minutes while the North Tower burned and the South Tower was struck. Photography, video footage and eyewitness accounts, including FDNY transcripts and mainstream media audio, confirm this fact.

Why is this significant? Let us consider the commercial air traffic on a typical Tuesday morning over New York City. There are three major airports servicing the city: La Guardia and JFK International to the east, and Newark International across the Hudson to the west. Normal holding patterns for these airports do not intersect the borough of Manhattan at any point. Lower Manhattan is, and was on the morning of 9/11/01, a low-altitude flight-restricted (no fly) zone for commercial jets, as designated by the FAA, for the obvious reason that heavy, fast-moving aircraft and tall buildings pose mutual hazards. Air traffic near the WTC towers was doubly restricted, with a minimum ceiling extending two thousand feet above the towers (3,300 feet) within a radius of one nautical mile, excepting only police aviation without special permit. These were the VFR (visual flight rules) parameters in effect on the morning of 9/11. Once WTC1 was hit, the black smoke plume expanding southeast from the tower would pose an additional threat to navigation.

No avoidance warning from Air Traffic Control would be necessary, as no rational commercial pilot (no matter how curious) would risk his aircraft, crew or passengers in a "fly-by" of the burning North Tower. But in this anonymous Camera Planet segment we see a large, twin-jet aircraft (757/767-class) doing just that at approximately 8:58am (assuming the time signature is uncorrected by one hour), five minutes before WTC2 will be struck. Even disregarding the indicated time, as WTC1 is burning and WTC2 is not, the segment is clearly recorded between 8:46am and 9:03am. Note this white aircraft with dark engines and vertical stabilizer is not the aircraft that will impact WTC2.


Then it offers this link:

terrorize.dk...

And then some stills are presented in the .pdf itself.


I think this is the same plane, Loam.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
And from that picture we can certainly tell that it was over lower Manhattan, and not farther back away from the city.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Which I suppose is the final point upon which this issue rests, since the plane wasn't going anywhere, but just flying around in circles. Right?



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And from that picture we can certainly tell that it was over lower Manhattan, and not farther back away from the city.


Well, couldn't we approximate the size of a plane that hit the WTC...use that for scale...and see what we have with the aircraft in question?

Any photo shop takers out there?

Also, can someone from NY confirm the orientation of the buildings? Newark is obviously WEST of the city...LaGuardia and Kennedy south of it.

Also, does anyone know if it was normal for commercial airliners to fly at that altitude directly over the city?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join