Third large jet filmed/photo'd at WTC's on 911

[isachar]

Pretty amazing:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_4_Jet.pdf">worldtradecentertruth.com..._4_Jet.pdf</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>This article has live links to the video and still photo of this large mystery jet that was also reported to have been in close proximity to the WTC's before the second hit.<br><br>This plane was not only forbidden from being there under the flight rules governing NYC on 911, but it was in serious jeopardy given that F-16's had reportedly been dispatched to the area.<br><br>I do not recall any other references in the official record to the presence of this jet. If this video/photo are legit, it presents a gaping hole in the 'official' record of what occurred that day. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=isachar>isachar</A> at: 8/29/06 9:44 pm<br></i>

[FourthBase]

- It seems rather far away from Manhattan<br>- The grounding of planes happened when exactly? Not until later, right?<br>- If it's filmed before the WTC2 is hit, then the military jets haven't got there yet (of course, that's its own issue)<br><br>I don't see what's so suspicious about this plane. <p></p><i></i>

[Et in Arcadia ego]

Me neither.<br><br>It's not like there's enough subterfuge and chaos in the 911 truth movement..<br><br>Who launched this skud onto the net? Let's trace propaganda back to it's source and call them out. <p>____________________<br>Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.</p><i></i>

[isachar]

A. It was prohibited by ATC and flight rules from being there in the first place. All pilots who fly in the NYC area know that area is off limits to all large commercial aircraft and flight paths - for obvious reasons.<br><br>B. Lens optics play a role in determing distance, but I do not agree that one can conclude it is 'far away'. Moreover, as the article points out, there are contemporaneous reports of a third plane in the area.<br><br>C. The lack of acknowledgement of this aircrafts presence and an official ID of it in the official record of the events of that day are very telling. This lack of acknowledgement and ID could well be the dog that didn't bark, IMO.<br><br>You may want to re-read the article. It's potential significance appears to have escaped you. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=isachar>isachar</A> at: 8/29/06 10:17 pm<br></i>

[JerkyLeBoeuf]

The wing configuration makes it look like a pilotless drone to me... specifically, the Global Hawk model.<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://files.turbosquid.com/Preview/Content_on_7_12_2003_00_54_49/globalhawk.max_thumbnail1.jpg667423F6-1391-4296-A13C8230CB8E4A70.jpgLarge.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[JerkyLeBoeuf]

PS - Planes NEVER fly around that area, EVER. Not before 9/11, not today, and certainly not ON 9/11, between two suicide bomber attacks. <p></p><i></i>

[isachar]

Jerky, smaller aircraft can fly up and down the Hudson and East River. No commercial-size aircraft are allowed anywhere in that vicinity. <p></p><i></i>

[JerkyLeBoeuf]

Thanks for the clarification, Issy. But don't you agree there's something weird about the plane in that video? <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>A. It was prohibited by ATC and flight rules from being there in the first place. All pilots who fly in the NYC area know that area is off limits to all large commercial aircraft and flight paths - for obvious reasons.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>From being where in the first place?<br>What area is off limits to what?<br>And how do you know that plane is there?<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>B. Lens optics play a role in determing distance, but I do not agree that one can conclude it is 'far away'. Moreover, as the article points out, there are contemporaneous reports of a third plane in the area.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>The video is zoomed, so there's a telescopic effect -- and it already looks far away, so it's even FURTHER away than it appears.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>C. The lack of acknowledgement of this aircrafts presence and an official ID of it in the official record of the events of that day are very telling. This lack of acknowledgement and ID could well be the dog that didn't bark, IMO.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Could be.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>You may want to re-read the article. It's potential significance appears to have escaped you.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>Until I see proof that it was located in a certain area, and that the area was off limits to commercial aircraft, then its potential significance to me = zero. <p></p><i></i>

[isachar]

Fourth, ask yourself why the presence of this relatively large jet in the vicinity of the Towers at that moment would escape the mention or interest of investigators.<br><br>You might want to make the effort to inform yourself of the flight paths serving LaGuardia, Kennedy and Newark. I know a pilot who frequently flies in that area. That area is closed to commercial traffic. That's pretty solid for my purposes, but of course you don't know that, and think otherwise, so go ahead and satisfy yourself and post the results. It would make a significant contribution to the discussion either way. <br><br>And, close or far away are relative terms. Given flight speeds, a mile, or even two would be 'close' in my estimation.<br><br>That area (e.g. virtually all of Manhattan and the immediate proximity is not a flight path for commercial flights - excepting the restricted flight paths serving La Guardia, far to the north of the WTC's.<br><br>on edit - oh, and the contemporaneous verbal reports were of a third plane in the area. While it may have been somewhat further at the point the camera caught it, that would not exclude its having been much closer earlier or later. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=isachar>isachar</A> at: 8/29/06 10:54 pm<br></i>

[FourthBase]

Good points.<br>I'll take a wait and see approach.<br>Looking forward to more info.<br><br>p.s. I'm sure I flew pretty close to the WTC before, to the south and east of Manhattan, I could see the towers pretty clearly. Not sure how many miles away I was, didn't seem that far up. 15, 20 thousand feet? <p></p><i></i>

[smithtalk]

am starting to see a pattern here fourth,<br><br>now i'm not saying it means anything or contributes anything but to write it off so quickly and nonchalantly as you do, not good <p></p><i></i>

[isachar]

FB, 15 - 20K feet up is pretty high up in my book and your description would suggest you may have been flying over the outer harbor area nearabouts the Verranzano Bridge and/or north-eastern NJ.<br><br>The observed third plane was much, much lower than that and much closer in to Manhattan than was your flight.<br><br>It may be that flights above a certain altitude (like, say 15 - 20K) might be allowed to fly over parts of the otherwise restricted Manhattan area airspace, but that's not the elevation of the recorded third plane.<br><br>Regards. <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>am starting to see a pattern here fourth,<br><br>now i'm not saying it means anything or contributes anything but to write it off so quickly and nonchalantly as you do, not good<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>STFU, thanks.<br><br>I didn't "write anything off" here.<br>I want proof that:<br>- the plane was in a certain area at a certain distance<br>- the area was off limits to that kind of aircraft<br><br>Sorry if you're allergic to the word "proof".<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>FB, 15 - 20K feet up is pretty high up in my book and your description would suggest you may have been flying over the outer harbor area nearabouts the Verranzano Bridge and/or north-eastern NJ.<br><br>The observed third plane was much, much lower than that and much closer in to Manhattan than was your flight.<br><br>It may be that flights above a certain altitude (like, say 15 - 20K) might be allowed to fly over parts of the otherwise restricted Manhattan area airspace, but that's not the elevation of the recorded third plane.<br><br>Regards.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>OK, so how does one determine the distance and height of the plane? Not only is the lens telescoped, but the camera is aimed at an upward angle. Assuming it's a commercial plane is there a way to deduce the distance and height by matching proportions? Does one need to know the exact magnification of the camera (e.g., 50X, 100X) and the exact height of the camera relative to WTC1? Can we estimate it? <p></p><i></i>

[smithtalk]

if you write STFU you dont really need to add the word 'thanks'<br>because an offensive and disrespectful string of abuse cant be followed with mock good manners, it just doesnt really work <p></p><i></i>