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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
/tosses a handful of chill pills into the thread and runs






posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

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


If by "city" you mean "Manhattan", then what about this?:


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.


Source.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
OK, so now we need to determine the relative position of that plane.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
You need to know the TYPE of plane that it is to determine the size of it. It's not easy to use the 767s that hit the WTC because if it's farther back it would LOOK the same size, but it could be a 777, or it could be closer and be another 767. There are so many twin engine types out there that are all different sizes that it's almost impossible to tell what it is.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
You do realize that there are military flights that use standard civilian models - like Area 51's "Janet" aircraft.

And the presence of such an aircraft would indicate, what, exactly?

There are a number of various things it could be doing. Atmospheric measurements, searching for radiation and evidence of biological or chemical agents in the air. It could have been gathering footage to be used to analyze and incorporate into future contigiency plans to better prepare for such an attack.... the list goes on.

You've also got foreign dignitiaries that would have to be given some sort of political immunity and rights of passage - perhaps surveying the damage first-hand.

There are a million different possibilities and one exists. One even including a bunch of overactive imaginations and fudged footage. Hell - we're willing to beleive they rigged the WTC with explosives...... for a few people to think they saw a third plane and some blurry footage be edited to include said plane is absolutely no stretch at all.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
In the picture I saw, this was NOT a military plane. It had a dark tail and white fuselage, similar to Delta and a couple of other airlines. The only twin (similar to this) engine planes the military uses are a handful of 737s with the USAF and USN and a very small number of 757s. The others are in the DC9 family, or are four engine. The USAF planes are painted with a blue and gold stripe down the tail, a blue nose and white fuselage. The picture I looked at this just appeared to be Delta airlines (or one of the similar painted ones) in a holding pattern somewhere near the city.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 08:26 PM
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.

hehe. heres the problem. there was another thread about an older gentleman who claimed he saw a the pentagon crash and claimed it wasnt a 757. he did however seem to have seen a larger aircraft.

that thread was recently debunked (apparently his son turned claims he is nuts). either way, that made me research more pentagon eyewitness reports. i had remembered that he was not the only person that saw the second plane. eyewitnesses claim that there was a c-130 on the scene and it went away right after the attack was completed. i have seen about a dozen or so of these claims.

is THAT whats in the wtc picture listed? its really bad if it is...



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   
No. It's DEFINATELY a commercial airliner in that picture. The C-130 took off from Washington DC AFTER the WTC strike. The plane in the pic has the engines mounted below a low mounted wing, where the C-130 is a high wing design with the engines mounted into the wing.

THIS is a C-130.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
and as we all know, it is not possible to paint an airplane.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   
It's not just the paint. It's the TYPE of plane. The only planes the US military has that even look ANYTHING like that one are a small number of VIP transports. They have something like TEN 757s in the USAF, and the USAF and USN between them have fewer than 50 737s. And I'll be amazed if that's a 737 in the picture, because the ones flying in 2001 were pretty small. I don't think the USN/USAF even started getting 737s until around 2001 or 2002.

You don't just slap a bunch of equipment into a plane and say "Ok, we're done with VIP transporting, so we're gonna use it to remote control a bunch of planes now."


[edit on 8/10/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   
i guess. youre qouting from memory, the picture in this thread is just 2 white dots.

this thread...

[edit on 10-8-2006 by jprophet420]



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Your link doesn't work, but there was a thread not long ago that had a big picture of the plane in the background, and it was quite easy to tell that it was a twin engine, low winged plane.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
terrorize.dk...


That's the video with the plane in it. You can CLEARLY see that it's a low wing two engine type plane, with a dark tail and light fuselage. I can't make out for CERTAIN what airline it is, but it LOOKS like Delta.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   
i dont think it's the same aircraft zaphod. if you look at the original pic, it's taken just as the second plane is slamming into the tower. in the video, the plane in question moves well past the point at which the plane in the picture is located when the second tower is hit.....and the video does not show the second tower being hit.

however, judging by the paint scheme the plane in the video is most likely a delta flight.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   
You know what? I just realized something... The smoke from the towers (I think) trailed SE? Right? That would put the plane in the image over NJ and would make it a Newark airport plane.

Unless you disagree, I guess I'm done with this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join