It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

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

page: 3
1
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 11:00 AM

posted by weedwhacker

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.

Didn't need to edit "size" to "altitude" because you cannot read. Do all the 'investigating' you wish.

My original edit was to get the video to work right, and that was within a minute after the post.

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 11:33 AM

Haha. I love that TJ 707 video. I live in Seattle so I've probably seen it more than most people. Just because you haven't seen it before, doesn't mean it can't be done. And with relative safety also.

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 02:56 PM

What is needed is the least amount of variable's possible. You said statue of liberty so will use this as a simple example, Standing at the base of the statue you will have a set of factors consisting of Wind, Pressure and a magnatude of a ton variables in consideration of type of "Day" it is. Now climb to the top of the statues crown and take those same measurements and you will positively find that its completely Different then stand on ground lvl.

With this i am somehow to assume that these variences are nulled by some unknown factor in which we care not to explain. Pretty much we are just throwing things as an example to something and hopeing that it "Looks" like a comparison. and it is not.

If you came to me with commercial airliners flying over another major city at roughly the same height and give or take speeds. I would then agree that the variables can be factored out and taken into consideration. But as for those other videos, they might as well be thrown out the window since the only thing anyone can come up with as a comparison to those with the 911 attacks is the word "Plane" other then that the mountain of inconsistancies and dissimularities is apparent.

Again This fly by was a blatant jab at the on going 911 Thoeries. As well as, getting statistics and "Real" information.

Unless however you think this was a scare "Tactic" of some kind.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by Bldrvgr]

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:24 PM

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.
Do you have such a tape? Or do you know someone else who does? I would be interested in finding out if there is a version, out there, that is not on the internet.
Seriously, do a search and see if you can find one that reproduces what you saw on 911. Let me know if you do because I would be interested in watching it.
Now, if such a search turns out to be fruitless, should that send up a red flag, in your mind? How can it be possible for all these people to have memories of clearly seeing a plane, but can not point to a single video and say, "This is exactly what I saw, as it happened"?

I guess I should mention I am the opposite of a no plane'r, maybe a no-tape'r. Instead of fake videos being distributed, you have clear tapes disappearing.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by jmdewey60]

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:28 PM

Here is one of them:

Battery Park View

It is clear to me that the object in question is a commercial jetliner. I used to live right in the south flight path of Sea-Tac Airport, and planes always flew so low coming in to land, that I am very used to them and what they look like. Sometimes if I looked up, I could even see their livery.

I do not have the tapes, but my stepdad, my old neighbor, and two friends I know have VHS tapes they made on that day. My old neighbor even started recording when the news broke, and got the live flight 175 impact as it happened. They are all back in Seattle, however. I am currently living in Spain for the time being.

I shall continue to look for video footage, that was the first one that i spotted. Due to my location and internet speed, the search engine, all in spanish, takes a while to find decent webpages based in the US or english speaking countries, and the videos take forever to buffer and play.

I shall call home this weekend, see if my friends know how to upload or transfer vhs stuff into something the computer will play.

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 10:39 PM

Good start. Of course that is not exactly what you saw live. But you can say that what you did see was similar, in that it could have been up-linked from a spot very close. (as in, let's say 75 feet, or so) Could you say the Battery Park video would be practicaly the same as the last few seconds of something that originaly was about thirty seconds long? Was there a point where the camera would have had to have been pointing almost straight up?
Considering the difficulty of your doing an internet search, maybe you can kind of take my word for it. My original question was somewhat rhetorical.
Things have advanced in consumer electronics to where ordinary people are buying hardware that can be used to transfer tapes to digital. Before that, it was pretty specialized.
I think it is time for people to dig out their old vhs players and take a look at what they recorded. What you have to look for is what you saw "live". Not the stuff that was played, over and over, later, on TV. There was something shown once, as it happened and then was scrubbed. Whatever it was, is replaced in the archives with helocopter footage. Look for where you can see the ground beneath the feet of a cameraman, not something from up in the air, or from the top of Rockefeller Center.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by jmdewey60]

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:23 AM
here is what I found on russian site:

some pics +video

www.webpark.ru...

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:22 AM

No offense, but I never take anyone's word for anything unless there is no conceivable way for me to find out, and I trust the source. I shall look for more footage as I browse, and will try and see if I can bypass spanish searches and go back the American ones.

I do not believe that the 9/11 footage was scrubbed later that day. Again, you would need the complicity of every news agency, foreign and domestic, and of every single person who handled and "scrubbed" said tapes. it might work with one or two agencies, but not the entire world's. I myself did not see the live hit as it happened, I woke much later. But I saw it on TV, and I saw the live part recorded at my neighbor's house. They were the same.

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:11 AM

This event was a USAF photo op showing our proud Air Force 1 against the backdrop of Lady Liberty. But with an F-16 on each wing????

What a bunch of Bozos! How could they not think that having a 747 flying low and slow over Manhattan with a pair of fighters in close trail would generate panic? I laughed my you-know-what off when I heard the story. Wonder who will get fired over that bone-headed decision?

Yes, the numbering system Boeing uses for their aircraft can be misleading as was identified by others here. The 747 (Whale) still rules the roost as the biggest Boeing aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of 800,000 pounds vice the 767's max weight of 412,000. I used a web site: flyaow.com... for the info.

What again was the original intent of this thread?

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:26 AM
i know this won't get much agreement here...but did it occur to anybody that maybe there was a person in the FAA that wanted to embarrass the president? like...o...say...a republican?

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:32 AM
Given Obama's already embarrassing behavior in foreign relations, I do not think he needs help embarrassing himself.

The flyover was a useless, expensive photo op, and it scared the the crap out of people. But I doubt the press will make much ado of it, like they did when Dubya pulled off that stunt in the gulf and spent millions to tell everyone the war was over.

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:31 PM

I think too much has been made out of this. yes, sure they should have told everyone, "Hey Air Force One is going to be flying around the city today."

But, doggone it, that is ONE airplane that is very easy to recognize, even from a considerable distance. How someone could look out, see it, and think something is wrong....

Personally, I think Joe Biden was out for a joyride in Daddy's plane.....

posted on May, 2 2009 @ 04:11 AM

Originally posted by iasenko
here is what I found on russian site:

some pics +video

www.webpark.ru...

Not to bring this back on topic or anything but I just thought I’d point something out.
Take note in the 5th image of the AF1 New York fly over in the above link
This is what a ‘bright white airliner” looks like when it’s in shadow.
Both planes that hit the WTC were in the shadow of the towers.

posted on May, 2 2009 @ 09:23 AM

Take note in the 5th image of the AF1 New York fly over in the above link
This is what a ‘bright white airliner” looks like when it’s in shadow.
Both planes that hit the WTC were in the shadow of the towers.

What is the aircraft in shadow of? It's own? It is high above the NY skyscrapers as is the F-16. There is no comparison with aircraft in the shadow of buildings, and it is flying much slower.

posted on May, 2 2009 @ 11:04 AM

Originally posted by SPreston

Take note in the 5th image of the AF1 New York fly over in the above link
This is what a ‘bright white airliner” looks like when it’s in shadow.
Both planes that hit the WTC were in the shadow of the towers.

What is the aircraft in shadow of? It's own? It is high above the NY skyscrapers as is the F-16. There is no comparison with aircraft in the shadow of buildings, and it is flying much slower.

Yes, of course it’s own. It’s far too high to be in the shadow of anything else. And even with all possible reflected light coming from the ground, the plane still appears almost black. And exactly what does it’s speed have to do with light and shadow?

posted on May, 2 2009 @ 11:23 AM

Take note in the 5th image of the AF1 New York fly over in the above link
This is what a ‘bright white airliner” looks like when it’s in shadow.
Both planes that hit the WTC were in the shadow of the towers.

What is the aircraft in shadow of? It's own? It is high above the NY skyscrapers as is the F-16. There is no comparison with aircraft in the shadow of buildings, and it is flying much slower.

Yes, of course it’s own. It’s far too high to be in the shadow of anything else. And even with all possible reflected light coming from the ground, the plane still appears almost black. And exactly what does it’s speed have to do with light and shadow?

Well the light would have a good deal to do with the opening of the lens aperture and the speed of the aircraft would have a good deal to do with the camera speed and clarity and the aircraft is over 2000 feet from the camera.

What is your point or are you just rambling on?

Are you blaming the Russians because their intelligence agents got the best photos of the NY 'photo op'? Maybe they should sell a few to the F-16 driver so he doesn't have to photoshop his work.

posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:05 PM

Your argument was about plane speed not shutter speed, which is what I addressed. Perhaps if your original statement had any validity you wouldn't have to change the subject or bring the Ruskies into it.
Try again.

new topics

top topics

1