Was that a missle launced off the coast of Cali?

I don't know. I didn't see it, but if he's "truthing" I would say he's wrong.

 

Then I say touché to you. You got me on a wordsmithing error.

 

Thank you.

 

he isnt "truthing" in the conventional sense. but he is calming the airplane was actually a missile cover-up, a chinese warning, which is absolute lunacy.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB7EGlGfJzI]YouTube - It Was a Missile - Not a Plane[/ame]

 

Ok, one more question. Lets just say it "was" a plane. Flight 902 if you will. According to the link you (martin) provided, it landed not long after crossing the coastline. If that was in fact flight 902, what was it doing at 35k that close to its approach? I've been on many a flight and they don't just drop like a rock out of the sky when they are on top of their target. They gradually come down and are usually very close to or below 10k ft at a few hundred miles out from the airport. I guess it was pilot error huh?

 

who said it was at 35k? i dunno how high it was, but you can find out by looking up its radar track like the guy i linked. although it is possible that the radar track website has been infiltrated by the chinese or wheover.

"the exact radar track of Flight UPS902 from Nov 8th, 2010, obtained from FlightWise.com"

again, i dunno what you are talking about regarding the plane's altitude, or where you got your info about it dropping like a rock. i think you got that from a loony website. but assuming that is true, i would propose to you that the flights you have been on were not UPS cargo fights, and perhaps cargo doesnt vomit like commercial airline passengers and therefore can make more severe movements in the sky. or maybe it was aliens.

but like i said, i have no reason to believe this flight path was any different than thousands upon thousands of others that happen every day.

looks like a relatively smooth descent to me though:




(image courtesy the US department of needless coverups and secrets that only loony right wing radio hosts can uncover)

 

My point is that if it was that close to where it was going to land it would not be so high that it (a plane) could not be EASILY identified by people on the ground. Anyone that lives within 100 miles of an airport can attest to that. True, cargo won't vomit like passengers however I'm sure the FAA has some some sort of regulated flight pattern and won't allow dive bombing runs at the E-7. I'm not saying that I don't belive it was a plane, however if it landed where the picture said it did, I don't think it was "THAT" plane. If it were, it would have been well under 10k feet when it crossed the shoreline and there would be no doubt as to where the contrail was coming from. Clearly that is not the case in this instance.

 

who said it was close?

i live in one of the most heavily air trafficked place in the world (i live in queens NY and both JFK and laguardia are in queens NY) and i see contrails all the time. some near, some far, some that look like the ones that are supposed to be the missile. i dont freak out when i see them.

again, you are inventing the idea about dive bombing.

radar proves it was that plane. it is public info and you can track it yourself and compare it to the times of the photos.

says who

there is no doubt. i told you million times it was ups flight 902.

wrong. it was ups flight 902. i dunno why such an ordinary piece of information is so hard for you to digest. its simply not crazy or wierd. have you never seen contrails like this? where have you been?

 

The link you provided with the "radar" details.

Then you should clearly be able to determine planes that are landing, taking off or flying to Toronto. The point is, if said plane is attempting to land within 100 miles of your location it WILL be under a 10k foot altitude and be easily identifiable, right? Not even you or the bearded one can argue this.

See the above! If the plane was going to land less than 100 miles inland and it was so high that a clear idenitfication could not be made then it would have had to make a very rapid drop onto the runway. That is not typical flight patterns regardless of what airline or what the cargo.

does it?

By your own admission you live close enough to witness many a flight. Get yourself a pint of mad dog, sit on the steps of your appt. and see if you can figure out which ones are going into laguardia and which are leaving. I'm sure a quick guy like yourself won't take long to figure it out.

Again, I'm not saying it is the conspiracy that beck is claiming, but I'm not buying that it was a plane that landed a hop skip and a jump from where it crossed the coastline, if it were we would not be having this discussion.

Because I don't believe everything the government or the media or jacklegs like you tell me to believe. Bottom line is that if it was the plane you said it was and it was that close to where it was going to land you should almost be able to read the tail numbers. Almost.

 

i am not sure i understand your contention. what exactly is out of the ordinary, based on what data? it appears to be me you are just making stuff up, or more accurately, repeating made up stuff you are reading somewhere.

i dunno that to be true, and i certainly dont know it to be true regarding cargo planes. what i do know is that this plane was identified and tracked and there is nothing at all out of the ordinary.

i see contrails all the time that are far away and the plane is too small to see but i can see the contrail. i have no idea what this is even slightly out of the ordinary. you people act like you have never seen a plane before. when i watch that video i see something i have seen a zillion times before.

but clear identification can and has been made. i told you a number of times that the plane is identified as ups902.

i showed you the graph of the flight path and it wasnt a rapid drop at all.

i like the part about mad dog, but the rest sounds boring.

of course not, truthers just ask questions and refuse the obvious answers.

"i am not buying it" isnt really a solid point. logicians call this the "argument from incredulity" fallacy.

again, i just droop my head with sadness, and i echo the comment from sabanfan: et tu brute? why? why do you have to fall victim to crazy talk?

the government and media are not even telling me anything or trying to trick me. there isnt even a story! a plane flying around isnt a newsworthy! i cant help it if some people have never seen a plane before or are crazy or something. i see these contrail things all the time!

again, that simply isnt true, especially when it was over the water.