Could an airliner be seen from the ground 260 miles away?
Attuarii
able to see an airliner (or its vapor trail) from 260 miles away?
--
"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses
or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not
change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
Giordano Bruno
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
> If a person were standing on the waterfront is it possible that she might be
> able to see an airliner (or its vapor trail) from 260 miles away?
Potentially.
Not having anythign better to do, I drew it up in CAD:
http://www.up-ship.com/images/airliner.gif
black circle is diameter of Earth. Blue circle is 35,000 feet above
the surface. Red line is 260 miles long. So someone standing on the
surface of the earth could, if the atmosphere was perfectly clear and
didn't refract, see something not too much higher than 35,000 feet,
260 miles away. But since the atmosphere ain't perfectly clear and
*does* refract, this coudl be problematic. However, there's an added
wrikle that makes this more possible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_%28mirage%29
Proper conditions could allow the contrail to be seen from distances
beyond the horizon.
Attuarii
EMT Patricia Ondrovic's account of 9/11 from near the WTC.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110048.PDF
"As I was running north in this park, and then I could start seeing again a
little bit, and I just kept looking in the sky. Cause the captain was saying
there's another plane heading in our direction, I was looking for another
plane. I saw something in the sky, it was a plane, but it was way out. It
looked like it was over Jersey or something, then it wasn't there anymore.
I saw a small fireball, and it was gone. I saw two other planes. One came
in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in
the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the
middle just disappeared into a little fire ball. It looked like the size of
a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off
into opposite directions."
It's hard to know what her account of seeing the plane disappear into a
fireball signifies. Rick Gibney supposedly shot down UAL 93 at 9:59. The
South Tower collapsed at 9:58:59. This woman sprinted about a quarter mile
and was scanning the skies immediately after the collapse of WTC 2. The
line of sight considerations show that she probably had an unobstructed
view of things flying at 40,000 feet over Somerset county. Now, whether
the planes (and/or vapor trails) would have been large enough to see is a
different question.
The NTSB shows the plane had descended from 40,700 feet to 5,000 feet
beginning at about 9:40. The data they provide does show that UAL 93 began
behaving erratically at about 9:59.
I don't know if atmospheric lensing could have made a plane at 5000 feet
over Somerset County PA visible to someone on Manhattan. She /was/ in the
most favorable location to see it, and looking in the right direction.
http://newton.ex.ac.uk/research/qsystems/people/sque/physics/horizon/
http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m309-03a/m309-projects/grant/atmoptics.html
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
The eye can resolve to about half and arc minute ie one inch at 200 yds.
The max distance for resolving a 747 as an aircraft shape (250 feet
long) would therefore be around (250*12)*200 yds = approx 300 miles max.
FFF
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London
Attuarii
Got a source I can reference on that?
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
> It's hard to know what her account of seeing the plane disappear into a
> fireball signifies. Rick Gibney supposedly shot down UAL 93 at 9:59.
Ah.... no. An F-16 in Montana would have a hell of a time shooting
down a plane in Pennsylvania.
The
> South Tower collapsed at 9:58:59. This woman sprinted about a quarter mile
> and was scanning the skies immediately after the collapse of WTC 2. The
> line of sight considerations show that she probably had an unobstructed
> view of things flying at 40,000 feet over Somerset county.
Very unlikely. You field of view in a *city* is extremely limitted. If
Muslims extremists flying hijacked panes have just crashed them into
skyscrapers not far from you and damn near brough the skyscrapers down
on your head, the likelihood that you are going to be able to even
*notice* aircraft hundreds of miles away is massively unlikely in the
extreme. Taking such trivial testimony and inflating it into virtually
physically impossible evidenc eof phenomellaly unlikely conspiracies
is the mark of a sadly warped and broken mind.
> I don't know if atmospheric lensing could have made a plane at 5000 feet
> over Somerset County PA visible to someone on Manhattan.
No. There are these things called "buildings, trees and hills" that
would be in the way. Atmospheric lensing bringing the beyond-the-
horizon into view really only works within a few degrees of the actual
horizon... which is why it really only works when you're looking over
vast stretches of water.
She /was/ in the
> most favorable location to see it...
No. ATC was in the best position to see it, and they didn't. Case
closed.
Attuarii
> On Mar 6, 3:12 pm, Attuarii <chatten...@germania.sup> wrote:
>
>> It's hard to know what her account of seeing the plane disappear into a
>> fireball signifies. Rick Gibney supposedly shot down UAL 93 at 9:59.
>
> Ah.... no. An F-16 in Montana would have a hell of a time shooting
> down a plane in Pennsylvania.
Gibney wasn't in Montana when UAL 93 went down. Do the math, and you will
find the Gibney could well have been on the tarmac in North Dakota 48
minutes after he was over PA.
> The
>> South Tower collapsed at 9:58:59. This woman sprinted about a quarter
>> mile
>> and was scanning the skies immediately after the collapse of WTC 2. The
>> line of sight considerations show that she probably had an unobstructed
>> view of things flying at 40,000 feet over Somerset county.
>
>
> Very unlikely. You field of view in a *city* is extremely limitted.
Read this word slowly and thing about what all the parts mean: "waterfront".
> If
> Muslims extremists flying hijacked panes have just crashed them into
> skyscrapers not far from you and damn near brough the skyscrapers down
> on your head, the likelihood that you are going to be able to even
> *notice* aircraft hundreds of miles away is massively unlikely in the
> extreme.
Even if someone had just told you that it was aircraft causing it, and
another one was on its way?
> Taking such trivial testimony and inflating it into virtually
> physically impossible evidenc eof phenomellaly unlikely conspiracies
> is the mark of a sadly warped and broken mind.
So are you now retracting you previous statement about the possibility of
seeing something at that distance and altitude?
>
>> I don't know if atmospheric lensing could have made a plane at 5000 feet
>> over Somerset County PA visible to someone on Manhattan.
>
>
> No. There are these things called "buildings, trees and hills" that
> would be in the way. Atmospheric lensing bringing the beyond-the-
> horizon into view really only works within a few degrees of the actual
> horizon... which is why it really only works when you're looking over
> vast stretches of water.
Define "vast stretches of water". More than a mile?
> She /was/ in the
>> most favorable location to see it...
>
>
> No. ATC was in the best position to see it, and they didn't. Case
> closed.
Like the one who said there was at least one F-16 almost on top of UAL 93
when they lost it?
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>> On Mar 6, 3:12 pm, Attuarii <chatten...@germania.sup> wrote:
>>
>>> It's hard to know what her account of seeing the plane disappear into a
>>> fireball signifies. Rick Gibney supposedly shot down UAL 93 at 9:59.
>> Ah.... no. An F-16 in Montana would have a hell of a time shooting
>> down a plane in Pennsylvania.
>
> Gibney wasn't in Montana when UAL 93 went down. Do the math, and you will
> find the Gibney could well have been on the tarmac in North Dakota 48
> minutes after he was over PA.
>
>> The
>>> South Tower collapsed at 9:58:59. This woman sprinted about a quarter
>>> mile
>>> and was scanning the skies immediately after the collapse of WTC 2. The
>>> line of sight considerations show that she probably had an unobstructed
>>> view of things flying at 40,000 feet over Somerset county.
>>
>> Very unlikely. You field of view in a *city* is extremely limitted.
>
> Read this word slowly and thing about what all the parts mean: "waterfront".
It means dirty air in a city.
What's the mean visibility through such air?
On a *good* day someone at Dover can see France, 22 miles away.
Attuarii
She was on the Leeward shore of Manhattan. The day was exceptionally clear.
There was a steady breeze of about 10 mph. The sun was to her back and
fairly high. The target was at between 5,000 and 40,000 feet altitude.
Most of the haze would have been concentrated near the surface, so the
majority of the (curved) line of sight would have been above the smog. Air
density increases exponentially with depth (negative altitude). That means
the greatest curvature of the image light is going to be closest to the
ground.
IOW, the greatest portion of the light path will have relatively low
attenuation.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
If you want a definitive opinion ask a meteorology NG
However, that perfect half minute of arc only applies at short range in
air, or a vacuum.
In a totally unpolluted atmosphere the max visibility is 200 miles at
sea level, or 300 miles at 12,000 ft. And that's for things like
mountains. [Rayleigh scattering limitation]
Attuarii
Quite honestly, I figured I would get better, and more timely, answers here
than on any "science" newsgroup. Putting all the pieces together, I would
say the chances are pretty good that she COULD have seen the downing of UAL
93 from the Manhattan waterfront.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
> Putting all the pieces together, I would
> say the chances are pretty good that she COULD have seen the downing of UAL
> 93 from the Manhattan waterfront.
Only if Newark, New Jersey suddenly turned invisible.
Take a look at what's between Manhattan and Shanksville: not only
cities right on top of the western shore of the river from Manhattan,
but the *entire* width of the Appalachian *mountains*. .
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=shanksville,+pa&ie=UTF8&ll=40.618122,-76.486816&spn=2.101483,5.097656&t=p&z=8
Are you suggesting that someone could see through smog, fog, mountain
have, cities and terrain to see an airplane shootdown that didn't
happen?
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 3:12 pm, Attuarii <chatten...@germania.sup> wrote:
>
> >> It's hard to know what her account of seeing the plane disappear into a
> >> fireball signifies. Rick Gibney supposedly shot down UAL 93 at 9:59.
>
> > Ah.... no. An F-16 in Montana would have a hell of a time shooting
> > down a plane in Pennsylvania.
>
> Gibney wasn't in Montana when UAL 93 went down.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=8
He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up
Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management
Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so
Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's
response to 9/11.
Do the math, and you will
> find the Gibney could well have been on the tarmac in North Dakota 48
> minutes after he was over PA.
A distance of 1000 miles in 48 minutes? Supercruising at Mach 1.7 in
an *F-16?* Not bloody likely.
>
> > The
> >> South Tower collapsed at 9:58:59. This woman sprinted about a quarter
> >> mile
> >> and was scanning the skies immediately after the collapse of WTC 2. The
> >> line of sight considerations show that she probably had an unobstructed
> >> view of things flying at 40,000 feet over Somerset county.
>
> > Very unlikely. You field of view in a *city* is extremely limitted.
>
> Read this word slowly and thing about what all the parts mean: "waterfront".
Look at a map, dumbass. Like this one:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=shanksville,+pa&ie=UTF8&ll=40.73269,-74.014893&spn=0.06556,0.159302&t=p&z=13
See "Hoboken?"
>
> > If
> > Muslims extremists flying hijacked panes have just crashed them into
> > skyscrapers not far from you and damn near brough the skyscrapers down
> > on your head, the likelihood that you are going to be able to even
> > *notice* aircraft hundreds of miles away is massively unlikely in the
> > extreme.
>
> Even if someone had just told you that it was aircraft causing it, and
> another one was on its way?
Even more so. You're not going to be looking for shit below the
horizon, but for airplanes within the city. In point of actual fact,
you're more likely going to be looking at your own feet as you hustle
out of Dodge.
>
> > Taking such trivial testimony and inflating it into virtually
> > physically impossible evidenc eof phenomellaly unlikely conspiracies
> > is the mark of a sadly warped and broken mind.
>
> So are you now retracting you previous statement about the possibility of
> seeing something at that distance and altitude?
No. Because what I pointed out was for someone looking out over the
ocean (as close to geometrically perfect as you can get on Earth), not
looking out over mountains and cities. *Do* try and keep up with the
adults.
> >> I don't know if atmospheric lensing could have made a plane at 5000 feet
> >> over Somerset County PA visible to someone on Manhattan.
>
> > No. There are these things called "buildings, trees and hills" that
> > would be in the way. Atmospheric lensing bringing the beyond-the-
> > horizon into view really only works within a few degrees of the actual
> > horizon... which is why it really only works when you're looking over
> > vast stretches of water.
>
> Define "vast stretches of water". More than a mile?
Considerably more. More like 50 or 100 miles, where the curvature of
the Earth begins to be noticable. The Great Salt Lake, which I live
within sight of, is something like 30 miles wide, and that's too
small... in the north-south direction it's more like 50, and that's
starting to get there for atmospheric lensing
The Mississippi was about a mile wide where I grew up. You could see
across it quite clearly.
>
> > She /was/ in the
> >> most favorable location to see it...
>
> > No. ATC was in the best position to see it, and they didn't. Case
> > closed.
>
> Like the one who said there was at least one F-16 almost on top of UAL 93
> when they lost it?
The "one?" Another anonymous source. Well, hell, from what an anoymous
source tells *me,* Flight 93 was brought down by a Truther armed with
a Stinger missile in order to help spur conspiracy theorists to line
his pocket.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
> >> Read this word slowly and thing about what all the parts mean:
> >> "waterfront".
>
> > It means dirty air in a city.
> > What's the mean visibility through such air?
> > On a *good* day someone at Dover can see France, 22 miles away.
>
> She was on the Leeward shore of Manhattan.
Which means downwind of New Jersey.
Yet again, your position is jam-packed full of FAIL.
> The day was exceptionally clear.
For New Jersey. How about the Appalatians? Any fog? Smog? Clouds?
Smoke?
> There was a steady breeze of about 10 mph. The sun was to her back and
> fairly high. The target was at between 5,000 and 40,000 feet altitude.
Which, at 260 miles, put them below then horizon. atmospheric lensing
puts them at best somewhat less than one degree above the horizon. But
New Jersy itself is more than one degree about the horizon. Remember,
accordifng to you this woman is on the Manhattan waterfront. Which
means the lowest elevation possible. But the river is in a shallow
valley. Hoboken is at 7 feet elevation. Newark at 30, Jersey City at
30, Hillside at 82. At one mile distance, one degree equates to about
92 feet. This means buildings of 85 feet would block one degree as
seen in Hoboken. Looking at Google Maps satellite imagery, that looks
about the height of riverfront buildins... never mind buildings and
trees further inland and further up.
God *damn.* Why do you Truther nuts always get other people to do your
homework for you?
> Most of the haze would have been concentrated near the surface, so the
> majority of the (curved) line of sight would have been above the smog. Air
> density increases exponentially with depth (negative altitude). That means
> the greatest curvature of the image light is going to be closest to the
> ground.
>
> IOW, the greatest portion of the light path will have relatively low
> attenuation.
And the full path will be below the horizon. Fata Morgana are rare
events over alrge bodies of water. They are unknown over terrain.
Attuarii
> On Mar 6, 5:03 pm, Attuarii <chatten...@germania.sup> wrote:
>> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>> > On Mar 6, 3:12 pm, Attuarii <chatten...@germania.sup> wrote:
>>
>> >> It's hard to know what her account of seeing the plane disappear into
>> >> a
>> >> fireball signifies. Rick Gibney supposedly shot down UAL 93 at 9:59.
>>
>> > Ah.... no. An F-16 in Montana would have a hell of a time shooting
>> > down a plane in Pennsylvania.
>>
>> Gibney wasn't in Montana when UAL 93 went down.
>
>
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=8
> He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up
> Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management
> Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so
> Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's
> response to 9/11.
Why are you invoking that foolish blather?
> Do the math, and you will
>> find the Gibney could well have been on the tarmac in North Dakota 48
>> minutes after he was over PA.
>
> A distance of 1000 miles in 48 minutes? Supercruising at Mach 1.7 in
> an *F-16?* Not bloody likely.
>
Top *advertised* speed for an F-16 is Mach 1.95, or 1288 mph. 1030 miles in
48 minutes.
>> Read this word slowly and thing about what all the parts mean:
>> "waterfront".
>
>
> Look at a map, dumbass. Like this one:
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=shanksville
+pa&ie=UTF8&ll=40.73269,-74.014893&spn=0.06556,0.159302&t=p&z=13
>
> See "Hoboken?"
The greatest amount of lensing is going to be closest to the observer.
>> Even if someone had just told you that it was aircraft causing it, and
>> another one was on its way?
>
> Even more so. You're not going to be looking for shit below the
> horizon, but for airplanes within the city. In point of actual fact,
> you're more likely going to be looking at your own feet as you hustle
> out of Dodge.
I don't typically watch my feet when I run. If I'm in a big grassy field -
as was our witness - I'm very likely going to be looking around me if I
think something might be coming at me to kill me. But that's just how *I*
think.
>> So are you now retracting you previous statement about the possibility of
>> seeing something at that distance and altitude?
>
> No. Because what I pointed out was for someone looking out over the
> ocean (as close to geometrically perfect as you can get on Earth), not
> looking out over mountains and cities. *Do* try and keep up with the
> adults.
The highest "mountain" in PA is 3200 feet. Hardly likely to have caused any
obstruction.
http://tinyurl.com/2qfmsq
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Shanksville+Pennsylvania&ie=UTF8&ll=40.634799,-76.459351&spn=2.867938,7.294922&t=k&z=8
>>
>> Define "vast stretches of water". More than a mile?
>
> Considerably more. More like 50 or 100 miles, where the curvature of
> the Earth begins to be noticable. The Great Salt Lake, which I live
> within sight of, is something like 30 miles wide, and that's too
> small... in the north-south direction it's more like 50, and that's
> starting to get there for atmospheric lensing
>
> The Mississippi was about a mile wide where I grew up. You could see
> across it quite clearly.
I've been to the exact location - give or take a few meters - where this
woman was when she witnessed the event. How could I ever forget that
impressive, world-famous Hoboken skyline?
>> > She /was/ in the
>> >> most favorable location to see it...
>>
>> > No. ATC was in the best position to see it, and they didn't. Case
>> > closed.
>>
>> Like the one who said there was at least one F-16 almost on top of UAL 93
>> when they lost it?
>
> The "one?" Another anonymous source. Well, hell, from what an anoymous
> source tells *me,* Flight 93 was brought down by a Truther armed with
> a Stinger missile in order to help spur conspiracy theorists to line
> his pocket.
There ain't no money in this, trust me. But, now that you mention it,
there's that whole shoot-down of AA 587 and the "Middle Eastern" men who
had their house searched a couple days later by feds. By way of deception,
and all that.
Attuarii
> On Mar 6, 5:56 pm, Attuarii <chatten...@germania.sup> wrote:
>
>> >> Read this word slowly and thing about what all the parts mean:
>> >> "waterfront".
>>
>> > It means dirty air in a city.
>> > What's the mean visibility through such air?
>> > On a *good* day someone at Dover can see France, 22 miles away.
>>
>> She was on the Leeward shore of Manhattan.
>
> Which means downwind of New Jersey.
Not a particularly pleasant thought, but on the day in question, the air was
probably about as clear as it gets.
> Yet again, your position is jam-packed full of FAIL.
>
>> The day was exceptionally clear.
>
> For New Jersey. How about the Appalatians?
A couple thousand feet too low to have any bearing on the situation.
> Any fog?
No.
> Smog?
Minimal, especially since there was probably very little traffics in the
previous hour, and a steady breeze.
> Clouds?
Nope.
> Smoke?
That was blowing the other way.
>> There was a steady breeze of about 10 mph. The sun was to her back and
>> fairly high. The target was at between 5,000 and 40,000 feet altitude.
>
> Which, at 260 miles, put them below then horizon. atmospheric lensing
> puts them at best somewhat less than one degree above the horizon. But
> New Jersy itself is more than one degree about the horizon.
Really? That would be what a ten-story building subtends from that
distance. I don't recall how high the seawall is there, but that is also a
consideration.
> Remember,
> accordifng to you this woman is on the Manhattan waterfront. Which
> means the lowest elevation possible. But the river is in a shallow
> valley. Hoboken is at 7 feet elevation. Newark at 30, Jersey City at
> 30, Hillside at 82. At one mile distance, one degree equates to about
> 92 feet. This means buildings of 85 feet would block one degree as
> seen in Hoboken. Looking at Google Maps satellite imagery, that looks
> about the height of riverfront buildins... never mind buildings and
> trees further inland and further up.
Yep. Pretty much confirms what I already concluded.
>
> God *damn.* Why do you Truther nuts always get other people to do your
> homework for you?
Certainly not in order to get it right.
>
>> Most of the haze would have been concentrated near the surface, so the
>> majority of the (curved) line of sight would have been above the smog.
>> Air
>> density increases exponentially with depth (negative altitude). That
>> means the greatest curvature of the image light is going to be closest to
>> the ground.
>>
>> IOW, the greatest portion of the light path will have relatively low
>> attenuation.
>
> And the full path will be below the horizon. Fata Morgana are rare
> events over alrge bodies of water. They are unknown over terrain.
This is not Fata Morgana.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 5:03 pm, Attuarii <chatten...@germania.sup> wrote:
> >> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >> > On Mar 6, 3:12 pm, Attuarii <chatten...@germania.sup> wrote:
>
> >> >> It's hard to know what her account of seeing the plane disappear into
> >> >> a
> >> >> fireball signifies. Rick Gibney supposedly shot down UAL 93 at 9:59.
>
> >> > Ah.... no. An F-16 in Montana would have a hell of a time shooting
> >> > down a plane in Pennsylvania.
>
> >> Gibney wasn't in Montana when UAL 93 went down.
>
>
> > He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up
> > Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management
> > Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so
> > Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's
> > response to 9/11.
>
> Why are you invoking that foolish blather?
You're consistant in your determination to confuse reason for madness.
>
> > Do the math, and you will
> >> find the Gibney could well have been on the tarmac in North Dakota 48
> >> minutes after he was over PA.
>
> > A distance of 1000 miles in 48 minutes? Supercruising at Mach 1.7 in
> > an *F-16?* Not bloody likely.
>
> Top *advertised* speed for an F-16 is Mach 1.95, or 1288 mph. 1030 miles in
> 48 minutes.
And can an F-16 supercruise on full afterburner for *that* long?
Again... not bloody likely.
> > See "Hoboken?"
>
> The greatest amount of lensing is going to be closest to the observer.
Wow.
> I don't typically watch my feet when I run. If I'm in a big grassy field -
> as was our witness - I'm very likely going to be looking around me if I
> think something might be coming at me to kill me. But that's just how *I*
> think.
And apparently you can see through hills, too.
>
> >> So are you now retracting you previous statement about the possibility of
> >> seeing something at that distance and altitude?
>
> > No. Because what I pointed out was for someone looking out over the
> > ocean (as close to geometrically perfect as you can get on Earth), not
> > looking out over mountains and cities. *Do* try and keep up with the
> > adults.
>
> The highest "mountain" in PA is 3200 feet. Hardly likely to have caused any
> obstruction.
Curvature of the Earth, dumbass. The ocean doesn;t have mountains at
all.
> I've been to the exact location - give or take a few meters - where this
> woman was when she witnessed the event. How could I ever forget that
> impressive, world-famous Hoboken skyline?
By assuming that New Jersey is as flat as the ocean.
> > The "one?" Another anonymous source. Well, hell, from what an anoymous
> > source tells *me,* Flight 93 was brought down by a Truther armed with
> > a Stinger missile in order to help spur conspiracy theorists to line
> > his pocket.
>
> There ain't no money in this, trust me.
Oh, bullshit. The smartest and savviest of you scummy lot of Truthers
are making money hand over fist selling t-shirts, bumper stickers,
website ad space and books to the more credulous of the Truthers
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
> > For New Jersey. How about the Appalatians?
>
> A couple thousand feet too low to have any bearing on the situation.
>
> > Any fog?
>
> No.
No fog anywhere in the Appalahians?
>
> > Smog?
>
> Minimal, especially since there was probably very little traffics in the
> previous hour, and a steady breeze.
No smog anywhere in the Appalahians?
>
> > Clouds?
>
> Nope.
In 260 miles, no clouds?
>
> > Smoke?
>
> That was blowing the other way.
Which means what, exactly, for any smoke in that 260 mile stretch?
>
> >> There was a steady breeze of about 10 mph. The sun was to her back and
> >> fairly high. The target was at between 5,000 and 40,000 feet altitude.
>
> > Which, at 260 miles, put them below then horizon. atmospheric lensing
> > puts them at best somewhat less than one degree above the horizon. But
> > New Jersy itself is more than one degree about the horizon.
>
> Really? That would be what a ten-story building subtends from that
> distance. I don't recall how high the seawall is there, but that is also a
> consideration.
>
> > Remember,
> > accordifng to you this woman is on the Manhattan waterfront. Which
> > means the lowest elevation possible. But the river is in a shallow
> > valley. Hoboken is at 7 feet elevation. Newark at 30, Jersey City at
> > 30, Hillside at 82. At one mile distance, one degree equates to about
> > 92 feet. This means buildings of 85 feet would block one degree as
> > seen in Hoboken. Looking at Google Maps satellite imagery, that looks
> > about the height of riverfront buildins... never mind buildings and
> > trees further inland and further up.
>
> Yep. Pretty much confirms what I already concluded.
After I did the math for you, amazingly.
>
>
>
> > God *damn.* Why do you Truther nuts always get other people to do your
> > homework for you?
>
> Certainly not in order to get it right.
Ah, cognitive dissonance, thy name is "Truther." Pretty much confirms
what I already concluded.
> > And the full path will be below the horizon. Fata Morgana are rare
> > events over alrge bodies of water. They are unknown over terrain.
>
> This is not Fata Morgana.
Yes, it is. Fata Morgana is one name for the atmospheric lensing being
discussed. It was called exactly that in my very first post to you in
this thread. You based your whole arguement on the assumption that
Fata Morgana would allow someone in Manhattan to see an airplane
falling out of the sky 260 miles away. Now that you don;t like what
you're being told about Fata Morgana, you conclude that you don't like
the name.
Shrug.
Well, I tried. But Truthers are not interested in facts that conflict
with their twisted worldview.
bowman
> He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up
> Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management
> Office.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but putting a F-16 into Bozeman must have
been interesting.
Doug Freyburger
>
> Only if Newark, New Jersey suddenly turned invisible.
That is a problem. Easily ignored by conspiracy theorists
with no interst in truth but who chant about being "truthers".
> Are you suggesting that someone could see through smog, fog, mountain
> have, cities and terrain to see an airplane shootdown that didn't
> happen?
If the airliner were shot down it would be classified data
not released to the public for 50 or even 100 years. The
public is lead to belive that the passengers on the plane
fought the terrorists and caused the plane to crash. But
there was a National Guard F16 in the area that was
capable of shooting that plane down and it had orders to
be ready to shoot it down. In the long run it doesn't
actually matter if the passenger revolt caused the crash
or an air to air missile caused it - Voice recordings make it
clear that a passenger revolt DID happen and that the
hijackers WERE defeated by the passengers. That plane
was the only one of the 4 where the passengers could know
what the hijackers intended and sure enough they revolted
and defeated the hijackers. Whether their fight caused the
crash or a ANG F16 missile caused the crash doesn't
change that crucial part of the meaning.
I AM going to say that no person in NYC at that time could
have seen the plane that far away obscured by the New
Jersey city skyline. I AM NOT going to say that F16 did
not fire on the hijacked plane. If it did it's classified data I
won't see unless I live to at least age 90, but it's irrelevant
to the meaning of subsequent events if the plane was shot
down or crashed from the passengers struggling with and
defeating the hijackers.
Here's what I find interesting in the "truther" lying tactics -
They ignore the fact that it's irrelevant and play games
trying to establish it did happen. Government cover up and
all, standard conspiracy crap. But classified event or
non-event, it just plain doesn't make a difference in the
meaning attached to the events. They are playing games
explicitly without meaning trying to create false meaning.
Is there any Asatru tie-in in all of this other than Steven
being an established Asatruar who happens to be nuttier
than the rest of us nuts? I think there is - The passengers
of the other 3 planes had no chance to learn that planes
were being crashed into buildings and that had never been
done before so they sat in the seats waiting to arrive at
some incorrect airport. But on this last flight the passengers
talked to family, learned they would die if they did not
resist, and they fought.
Randomly selected people with no prior established track
record as heroes, yet they fought and died for a greater
good. They knew they were dead no matter what they did
so they turned hero in the face of death. Terrified or not,
courage isn't lack of fear. Courage is being afraid and
acting anyways.
Attuarii
> "scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com" <scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> Only if Newark, New Jersey suddenly turned invisible.
>
> That is a problem. Easily ignored by conspiracy theorists
> with no interst in truth but who chant about being "truthers".
I've already examined the parameters. Perhaps you should do the same.
>> Are you suggesting that someone could see through smog, fog, mountain
>> have, cities and terrain to see an airplane shootdown that didn't
>> happen?
>
> If the airliner were shot down it would be classified data
> not released to the public for 50 or even 100 years. The
> public is lead to belive that the passengers on the plane
> fought the terrorists and caused the plane to crash.
Yup! Gatta pin it on them Rag-heads! Oh, fvck! That's right! The even
found a head rag!
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/moussaoui/111PA.jpg
> But
> there was a National Guard F16 in the area that was
> capable of shooting that plane down and it had orders to
> be ready to shoot it down. In the long run it doesn't
> actually matter if the passenger revolt caused the crash
> or an air to air missile caused it - Voice recordings make it
> clear that a passenger revolt DID happen and that the
> hijackers WERE defeated by the passengers.
Oh! That's right! How could I forget the CVR that recorded what happened
in the passenger cabin? <slaps forehead>
> That plane
> was the only one of the 4 where the passengers could know
> what the hijackers intended and sure enough they revolted
> and defeated the hijackers. Whether their fight caused the
> crash or a ANG F16 missile caused the crash doesn't
> change that crucial part of the meaning.
It actually raises an very interesting issue. Dubya when airborne at 9:57
in Sarasota.
> I AM going to say that no person in NYC at that time could
> have seen the plane that far away obscured by the New
> Jersey city skyline.
The what? Big clue in Ondrovic's account "I could smell water, so I just
kept on running towards the water, cause I knew that my coat was on fire,
and I figured well, if I can see a boat over the water, I'm just gonna jump
onto the boat and take that thing to Jersey, cause no one wants to blow up
Jersey. ... " Cause there ain't shit there!
> I AM NOT going to say that F16 did
> not fire on the hijacked plane. If it did it's classified data I
> won't see unless I live to at least age 90, but it's irrelevant
> to the meaning of subsequent events if the plane was shot
> down or crashed from the passengers struggling with and
> defeating the hijackers.
Somehow I have trouble visualizing a bunch of passengers wrestling with the
on-board FMC.
> Here's what I find interesting in the "truther" lying tactics -
> They ignore the fact that it's irrelevant and play games
> trying to establish it did happen. Government cover up and
> all, standard conspiracy crap. But classified event or
> non-event, it just plain doesn't make a difference in the
> meaning attached to the events. They are playing games
> explicitly without meaning trying to create false meaning.
As you will.
> Is there any Asatru tie-in in all of this other than Steven
> being an established Asatruar who happens to be nuttier
> than the rest of us nuts? I think there is - The passengers
> of the other 3 planes had no chance to learn that planes
> were being crashed into buildings and that had never been
> done before so they sat in the seats waiting to arrive at
> some incorrect airport. But on this last flight the passengers
> talked to family, learned they would die if they did not
> resist, and they fought.
Whatever happened to Barbara Olson?
> Randomly selected people with no prior established track
> record as heroes, yet they fought and died for a greater
> good. They knew they were dead no matter what they did
> so they turned hero in the face of death. Terrified or not,
> courage isn't lack of fear. Courage is being afraid and
> acting anyways.
Tell me about it.
Doug Freyburger
The F16 Falcon is a single seat fighter bomber. Just how many
of the two seater training models are available hanging out at
runway side hangers on call waiting to be scrambled? With
fully fueled drop tanks attached, and just where was the drop
tank ejected and dropped when it emptied?
I've seen F15 Eagles at the Buffalo airport. Landing military
planes at civilian airports isn't that rare. The Bozeman one does
have a paved runway, right? That's about all it takes.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
> If the airliner were shot down it would be classified data
> not released to the public for 50 or even 100 years.
Hardly seems likely that such a thing *could* be kept quiet, given
that every last bit of data supports the "pilot plowed it into the
ground" version of events, and absolutely none supports the "unarmed
F-16 equipped with special Asgardian-supplied impulse engines shoots
down airliner with nobody seeing it" version of events.
The
> public is lead to belive that the passengers on the plane
> fought the terrorists and caused the plane to crash. But
> there was a National Guard F16 in the area that was
> capable of shooting that plane down...
Was there? Define "in the area."
> Randomly selected people with no prior established track
> record as heroes, yet they fought and died for a greater
> good. They knew they were dead no matter what they did
> so they turned hero in the face of death. Terrified or not,
> courage isn't lack of fear. Courage is being afraid and
> acting anyways.
Very well said.
I'm hopping a flight in just a few days. I've long hoped that if such
a thing were to happen on a plane I'm on - and unlike a lot of folk, I
really hope it *doesn't* happen, given as how I'm not really in the
mood for dyin', and have no interest in fame as a hero, given that
"hero" is often enough just another word for "foolhardy dead guy" -
that one of the news reports after the event would report that the
skull of one of the hijackers was found to have been bashed in by a
laptop.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
> bowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:
> > scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > > He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up
> > > Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management
> > > Office.
>
> > I don't have a dog in this fight, but putting a F-16 into Bozeman must have
> > been interesting.
>
> The F16 Falcon is a single seat fighter bomber. Just how many
> of the two seater training models are available hanging out at
> runway side hangers on call waiting to be scrambled? With
> fully fueled drop tanks attached, and just where was the drop
> tank ejected and dropped when it emptied?
It's unlikely that a drop tank was actually ejected. My understanding
is that the USAF does not like to expend those things.
And an F-16 with drop tanks will have a hard time supercruising.
Attuarii
bowman
> I've seen F15 Eagles at the Buffalo airport. Landing military
> planes at civilian airports isn't that rare. The Bozeman one does
> have a paved runway, right? That's about all it takes.
12/30 is 9000' and paved. No problem. 3/21 is paved, but only 2650. You
could get out, but I don't think you'd want to come in on it. 11/29 is
3200' of turf.
I didn't think they had 9000. They've been concerned about VLJ traffic, but
that must be on the crosswind. A F16 isn't real concerned about crosswind,
unless they're planning to pop a chute for a really dramatic arrival. Nice
thing about Gallatin Field is there isn't much to hit.
Derrick Parfitt
"Attuarii" <chatt...@germania.sup> wrote in message
news:Y7SdnX776_U7BU3a...@speakeasy.net...
Let's put in bluntly.... She did not see the downing of flight 93 in
Somerset, PA from Manhattan. It is too far and I don't care about some
theoretical refraction or whatever. She just didn't see it.