This is what a REAL plane flying low over Manhattan looks like.

The 747,(in the flyover) is a much bigger plane,
has four engines,not two...but I the OP's point
was more to the fact that it is clearly visible
on this video,although the white against blue
would help,remember the white plane on 9/11
was pretty visible too.

Originally posted by jd140

Originally posted by unlikelycandidate

Originally posted by DangerDeath
Boy, are you guys scared of your own president

But this plane is twice as big as those that hit the towers.

You are absolutely correct...but was reported was a plane that dimensionally is bigger...which is the post of the thread!!

I'm missing something.

For me, could you explain what you are trying to prove?

We have been fed all these pictures of this blackish greyish ....thing... and when we have seen an "actual" plane, I'm pretty sure it was altered somehow. But this picture was an actual no crap picture flying low over manhattan picture and how it should have looked.

Originally posted by unlikelycandidate
What's funny is .... this plane is smaller but yet it looks big as [SNIP]!!!!.....

Ok, we already established that that isn't true.

.....this is what a white commercial airliner would look like from a distance in direct sunlight.

No it isn't ...

Air Force one is two shades of blue and white on top.

This is point blank...smoking gun proof.

Of What?

[edit on 27 Apr 2009 by schrodingers dog]

My question is wth were they thinking, give authorization to a flyover like this over NYC?

747 OVER NYC 27TH APRIL

Given the reaction of alot of New Yorkers, it seems they saw something like this happen before. Maybe on 9/11/01....the last time America was attacked by real low flying planes?

This stunt was used to stir emotion and bring back memories of 9/11 to make it easier for the President to make an umpopular descission soon.

People are now talking about it, they are on edge about it and now they are scared of Mexicans due to the flu.

just to uses an analogy, you don't need to enter a chicken coop in order to scare the chickens.

reply to post by unlikelycandidate


767 are smaller than 747

767 - 2 engines vs 747 4 engines

767 Specs

No. Of Engines: 2
Aircraft Type: Jet
Passenger Capacity (Max): 290
Passenger Capacity (Min): 211
Range (in Miles): 7660
Cruising Speed (MPH): 550
Payload Capacity (in Lbs): 69,000
Wingspan: 156
Length: 159
Height: 52
Takeoff Weight (in Lbs): 312,000
Body Type: widebody
Cabin Type: pressurized

747 Specs

No. Of Engines: 4
Aircraft Type: Jet
Passenger Capacity (Max): 569
Passenger Capacity (Min): 374
Range (in Miles): 6,500
Cruising Speed (MPH): 557
Payload Capacity (in Lbs): 134,000
Wingspan: 195
Length: 231
Height: 63
Takeoff Weight (in Lbs): 875,000
Body Type: widebody
Cabin Type: pressurized

reply to post by unlikelycandidate



Smaller planes look worse on camera then bigger planes do. This one is alot bigger then the ones that hit the WTC so it shows up better on camera.

Plus you have to take into account of how close the camera is and the quality of camera.

I think a 757 or 767 flew into the Twin Towers in 2001, And they are smaller than a 747.

Originally posted by unlikelycandidate

That my friends is what a real airplane looks like flying low. I think that this photo op is to answer a few questions that's on the Presidents mind.

I have to agree that the crash videos on 9/11 look a lot different than these. These look more real. My opinion now is some of the 9/11 crash videos are fake.

Seems like a lot of New Yorkers do not trust their own government as they ran screaming from the buildings.



This 747 was more than twice the altitude of the 9-11 767 aircraft, and flying much slower.



[edit on 4/29/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


Ah....exaggeration.

B747 wingspan: 195 feet - length: 231 feet
B767 wingspan: 156 feet - length: 159 feet

"More than twice" the size, huh?

Well, you are correct, it WAS a lot slower than the 9/11 attack jets.

People overreacting to much. This was purely a jab at the 911 Conspiracies about the planes being able to fly at that level without Major control loss.. They probably took down information on stability of the airliners above the city at this lvl for further research...

But this was clearly stemed up on the 911 claims. Question would be how fast did they push the airliner to go, inretrospect of the 911 attacks.

Size wise, Im mixed atm since alot the cams from pedestrians makes the Plane look distanced and albiet small as how was the 911, since that was pretty much what we had for that attack anyway.

reply to post by Bldrvgr


There was NO need to demonstrate a jet's ability to fly at 1,000 to 1,500 feet!! How do you think airplanes take off and land, anyway?

Here, enjoy this:



And this:

(warn - if you lived through the 9/11 attacks in NYC the visual and sound may bring back uncomfortable memories)



Just for fun, here's an oldie, but goodie. (poor quality, but it IS old).
'Tex' Johnston is my hero!







[edit on 4/29/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by unlikelycandidate


We have been fed all these pictures of this blackish greyish ....thing... and when we have seen an "actual" plane, I'm pretty sure it was altered somehow. But this picture was an actual no crap picture flying low over manhattan picture and how it should have looked.

Um, no offense, but maybe you should have your eyes examined, and maybe your TV and monitor resolution checked. Blackish, greyish thing? Um, it's called UA flight 175. A Boeing 767. I remember the videos from that day, watching them on TV, and there was no doubt in my mind that it was a pretty big passenger jet that crashed into the south tower. My Tv wasn't that great, but it was clear enough that there was no mistaking what went barreling into the WTC: a big honker of a jet. Clear as day.

I still don't get this crap that there was no plane. Try watching VHS tapes recorded from Tv that day, and not old worn crap footage uploaded and compressed on the internet.

The object in question was a commercial passenger jetliner.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SPreston

 

SPreston
This 747 was more than twice the altitude of the 9-11 767 aircraft, and flying much slower.

Ah....exaggeration.

"More than twice" the size, huh?

Well, you are correct, it WAS a lot slower than the 9/11 attack jets.

So you flunked out of reading class also?

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The object in question was a commercial passenger jetliner.

I and my immediate family watched it all on TV from just after news coverage started (right after first hit) and my girlfriend has family in New York that saw it go down in plain view so I'll definitely back you up on that.

reply to post by SPreston


Ha!! What time did you edit your post to change the word "size" to "altitude"?? Hmmm? I'm sure there's a record somewhere, if you wished to pursue it.

Meh! Hyprocrisy apparent.

And, again...please read MY post. I said that the VC-25A was at most 1,500 feet, somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500. So, the hijacked airplanes, at about 1,000 feet...they were (to paraphrase your claim) less than half the altitude of the flyover airplane the other day??? Is THIS your allegation? Oh, boy...I have an insult to rival yours, but....nope! Not this time.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Umm try atleast giveing something in comparison .. Other then Open Fields and blatant Changes in the planes directions, vs what was done in NY.

reply to post by Bldrvgr


Well, Bldrvgr. Not sure what you want?

Look at a Google Map, center the Statue of Liberty. Switch it to satellite view. Pay close attention to the scale.

Now, consider that some of the amateur videos used a zoom function. This exaggerates the apparent proximity of the airplane to the buildings. You see it all of the time, done better, by Hollywood.

OK....the B747 that sometimes stands in as 'Air Force One' didn't fly up and down Broadway or Madison Avenue!

Oh, and FYI, maximum airspeed under 10,000 feet is 250 knots (although, of course, exemptions are made). A very light B747 can fly below 250 kts, without Slats and Flaps (they'd spoil the pictures...I assume the goal was a pretty picture of a 'clean' airplane). I'd estimate the safe 'clean' flaps up airspeed for the B747 is about 220 kts, since they had no payload to speak of, and just enough fuel for the photo-op, and the return to Andrews AFB, in Maryland (plus reserves).

So....since the subject was what a 'REAL' airplane flying low looks like, I included the examples of high-speed passenger airplanes, to refute the 'no-planers' aspect of the 9/11 controversy. If you want to see examples of heavy jets, dirtied up and flying slower at about 1500 feet, go to your nearest major airport, and watch them land.