Was NOT an Airplane (as per General)

reply to post by Phage


So you are sure it was flight 808 from Hawaii am I correct? Then what is this about UPS 902 from Hawaii.
uncinus.wordpress.com...

If you are going to be so sure of this being the flight you may not want to link a site that talks about it being a different flight from a different company. Just saying. This was from your link.I do not know what it is we are seeing, but if your going to be sure and tell people you are positive of what you are posting at least get the flight right please.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h

OK. UPS 902 then. Putting the track on Google Earth and knowing where the new photograph was taken from helps a lot, doesn't it? See, by looking at all the data available the details of a conclusion can be changed. By ignoring that data you get stuck with a wrong conclusion. It was a plane.

That website was updated yesterday, BTW. After I linked it.

reply to post by Phage

So now it wasn't flight 808??
I'll have to look at the details of this UPS flight.
From what I hear these were the only two flights in the are at the time.
BTW, we have the new pics but zero data..We do not have a time or a date.
No exif data, isn't really much to base a decision on.

reply to post by backinblack

Whatever plane was in the area was lucky that missile didn't hit it!

Click here for more information.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Well....let's examine UPS 902 also.

flightaware.com...

Destination was Ontario. You should be aware that Ontario Airport is a mere 37 miles, or so, east of LAX.

This means that around the point where UPS 902 would be crossing the California coastline, it would have already needed to start its normal descent for landing. (This usually occurs just within about 100 mile radius of destination. You can "ballpark" a large jetliner's descent by using the "three-to-one" ratio rule of thumb. In a power-off ---- engines at idle power ---- descent, the airplane will lose about 1,000 feet for every three miles horizontally. SO, from 39,000 feet, for example, [UPS902's cruise altitude] multiply by three. Allow, also, in this descent profile that the airplane will fly PAST the airport, in this case, in order to make a turn back and land to the west, so have to consider the distance travelled over the entire ground track....)

We see that around the west longitude equal to where the LAX Airport sits (118degrees, 25 minutes) UPS 902 was already down, form 39,000 to 29,000 as part of the initial descent.

SO, directly south of LAX, at 29,000 feet...at time 1732-1733 PST. Does that timeline comport with the contrail videotaped by the TV cameraman??

Please take note, also, that BOTH USAir 808 and UPS 902 flew the exact same route, inbound from the Pacific Ocean. They matched exactly up to over Catalina, then the plans diverged, of course, because of the different destinations.

There, a lot of information, for ATS sleuths to examine........

reply to post by Human_Alien


Are you not paying attention???

There are TWO candidate large airliner flights, on the SAME route, near the approximate SAME timeframe.

WIll you at least take the time to actually look at the many sources provided, study them intently, instead of just brushing it off, because it doesn't fit your already pre-disposed bias???

reply to post by Human_Alien

You noticed?


Yes, what you see is not what you saw! Eyewitness accounts mean nothing, nor does the testimony of military personnel or other experts that have no reason to lie. That there is a plane contrail, cough, cough, nothing to look at.

Don't really understand why it is even being discussed, but I keep a coming here!

reply to post by Human_Alien

The important fact is that the trail was left by an airplane, not a missile.
The flight didn't take off at that time or in that area. UPS flight 902 took off from Honolulu.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by tsurfer2000h

 

Well....let's examine UPS 902 also.

flightaware.com...

Destination was Ontario. You should be aware that Ontario Airport is a mere 37 miles, or so, east of LAX.

This means that around the point where UPS 902 would be crossing the California coastline, it would have already needed to start its normal descent for landing. (This usually occurs just within about 100 mile radius of destination. You can "ballpark" a large jetliner's descent by using the "three-to-one" ratio rule of thumb. In a power-off ---- engines at idle power ---- descent, the airplane will lose about 1,000 feet for every three miles horizontally. SO, from 39,000 feet, for example, [UPS902's cruise altitude] multiply by three. Allow, also, in this descent profile that the airplane will fly PAST the airport, in this case, in order to make a turn back and land to the west, so have to consider the distance travelled over the entire ground track....)

We see that around the west longitude equal to where the LAX Airport sits (118degrees, 25 minutes) UPS 902 was already down, form 39,000 to 29,000 as part of the initial descent.

SO, directly south of LAX, at 29,000 feet...at time 1732-1733 PST. Does that timeline comport with the contrail videotaped by the TV cameraman??

Please take note, also, that BOTH USAir 808 and UPS 902 flew the exact same route, inbound from the Pacific Ocean. They matched exactly up to over Catalina, then the plans diverged, of course, because of the different destinations.

There, a lot of information, for ATS sleuths to examine........

I guess you would also have to check the weather at 29000' to see if it was conducive for large contrails. We did see it was at 39000 but 10000' can make a huge difference. And the UPS plane, as you note would have been powering down to some extent. Would that not diminish contrail production?

reply to post by backinblack

And the UPS plane as you note would have been powering down to some extent. Would that not diminish contrail production?

Yes, to some extent. Engines pulled back to flight idle would mean a less-prominent contrail. And, yes, the altitudes matter too.

The FlightAware flight log data points and graph can help...as long as you see the same altitude, then airplane is level, and engines up at power to maintain altitude and airspeed. When descending (or climbing) the data is shown, too, in the "Altitude" column, where it says "Rate", with the up/down arrows.

Plot that yourself, if you wish, with the Lat/Long info provided alongside.

reply to post by backinblack

Yes, and that is a good explanation for the shortening of the contrail seen in the video and the photographs.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

Are you not paying attention???

There are TWO candidate large airliner flights, on the SAME route, near the approximate SAME timeframe.

WIll you at least take the time to actually look at the many sources provided, study them intently, instead of just brushing it off, because it doesn't fit your already pre-disposed bias???

If I see clouds and it's raining, am I labeled biased cause I say it's storming???

Wow WW.

My opinion is the only thing I have left without Homeland Securities inflitrating it so, I am allowed to feel any way I want. And I am not a woodchuck born in the back woods of my mama's daddy's log cabin. I am a very bright, astute and aware person.
Now...............................

I don't give a flying-F16 if there were 17 PLANES in the sky at the same time.

This was NOT a plane. ('illusion' my arse) And this expert pilot who is very aware of all sorts of stuff up there, was wrong too, right?

No one (I hate using this word but: Official) has come forward saying this was absolutely positively 100% certain, a passenger plane.
Not one person.
Why is that? Oh, is Phage the American spokes-person now?

This was a missile. Just like the one that went into the Pentagon. Well, maybe not the exact same one but the same weapon!

Do not bother trying to tell me anything other than this was a missile because it ain't registering.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

And the UPS plane as you note would have been powering down to some extent. Would that not diminish contrail production?

Yes, to some extent. Engines pulled back to flight idle would mean a less-prominent contrail. And, yes, the altitudes matter too.

The FlightAware flight log data points and graph can help...as long as you see the same altitude, then airplane is level, and engines up at power to maintain altitude and airspeed. When descending (or climbing) the data is shown, too, in the "Altitude" column, where it says "Rate", with the up/down arrows.

Plot that yourself, if you wish, with the Lat/Long info provided alongside.

Thanks for that...If it was landing 37 miles from lax then it is pretty obvious it would have been on aproach and dropping where this film was taken.. I would say that video does not look like a plane that is landing in under 50 miles though..

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

 

Yes, and that is a good explanation for the shortening of the contrail seen in the video and the photographs.

lol, how about giving some real proof instead of starting with a conclusion as you have done throughout this subject.
You started with it being a plane and have since twisted every bit of information to fit that notion.
It's not meant to work that way. You are not even remotely open to it being anything else.

reply to post by backinblack



Look again at UPS 902's descent profile:

08:32PM 33.35 -118.28 98° East 542 624 29,000 -300 Los Angeles Center
08:33PM 33.33 -118.10 99° East 548 631 29,000 Los Angeles Center
08:34PM 33.31 -117.92 99° East 559 643 29,000 -240 Los Angeles Center
08:35PM 33.28 -117.73 99° East 564 649 28,600 -1,560 Los Angeles Center
08:36PM 33.26 -117.55 100° East 559 643 25,900 -2,520 Los Angeles Center
08:37PM 33.23 -117.38 97° East 543 625 23,600 -2,340 Los Angeles Center

Time (EST). From 118'29" west, at FL290. That is just before flying due south of LAX. Then, stayed at FL290 until about 117'92 west, where next descent began.

Compare back to the USAir 808 data, if you wish. (No descent for that flight, in the LA area, of course).

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thanks for that WW.
So like I said previously, you'd expect weather conditions to be quite different at 29000'.
Was it conducive to contrails I wonder...

reply to post by Human_Alien

And this expert pilot who is very aware of all sorts of stuff up there, was wrong too, right?

Yes.

If you are referring to Gen. McInerny (Ret). AND, based on what I've read about his actual flying experience, compared to mine, I certainly would not consider him an "expert" in that area. Has anyone bothered to check in on him lately?

And, why are so many "missile" believers discounting the dozens of other "experts" who disagree with this (Ret) general? And, "missile" believers ignore all the other glaring facts that indicate the contrail seen could NOT have been originating from the Earth's surface. The sunlight and shadow (lack of shadow, actually) confirm this.....

reply to post by backinblack

Do you know how science works? You begin with a hypothesis then look for evidence, experimental or observational, to support your hypothesis. If evidence arises that contradicts your hypothesis the hypothesis is discarded or modified. There is no evidence which precludes the contrail being produced by an airplane.

What evidence is there that this was not an airplane? What evidence (other than an edited newscast video) is there that this was a missile?