New Doc: The Jesters Plane - What happened to National Airlines 102 ?

The Official Story:

National Airlines Flight 102 was a cargo flight operated by National Airlines. On 29 April 2013, the Boeing 747-400 operating the flight crashed moments after taking off from Bagram, killing all seven people on board.

A dashboard camera on a car in the vicinity of the runway end recorded the crash.[1][8] CNN stated that a government official speaking on the condition of anonymity said that the video was authentic

----------

Released on Friday the 13th, almost 5 years after the actual events, this somewhat weird mocumentary explores furthers and (entertaingly) questions the authenticity of said recording.

--------------
The Jesters Plane - A Journey Down The Rabbithole 102

vimeo.com...

----------------

The playing time is 2:37h and it is not recommended to watch on a small screen.

Those who wear their tinfoilhatgear rather lose, should find some enjoyment in it...

*...grr I intended this thread to be much more in-depth but I have not used ATS in quite some time and can`t figure out how to add pictures and now I am sad - expect this thread to be updated. *

Don’t be sad......it’s just a thread. Horrible accident that sends shivers up my back, now that crash was sad. RIP

That accident was from a failure to properly secure cargo, I think wheeled vehicles, that slipped aft on takeoff making the aircraft uncontrollable. Pity.

And the company had a similar name but nothing to do with NAL that operated for so long in the US.

First off, I'm not an "aircraft guy" and only skimmed through about 30 minutes of the video, but that was more than enough.
Those who are will likely have much better reasons to debunk this.
The guy in the video is trying to make a conspiracy out of 2 entirely different aircraft, that crashed in entirely different ways and because he doesn't see "sh** flying through the air" uses that as a point to claim it was faked.
The Stratofortress goes in nose down and sideways, with the right wing making first contact with the ground, then the nose. More forward momentum causes the aircraft to tumble somewhat, leading to how it broke apart on impact.
The 747-400 pancaked in, landing almost flat with little forward momentum, so a smaller debris field/ less " sh** flying through the air".
He also makes a point of

The crash interrupted the New Zealand Defence Force's (NZDF) withdrawal from Afghanistan, as it was only hours away from using another National Airlines aircraft to fly equipment out of the country; after the crash the NZDF indefinitely postponed using National Airlines for its airlift requirements.[12] In media

Of course they delayed
They aircraft they were using just crashed for unknown reasons. They're not going to just say "Meh, load up another one and let's see if it flys"
The voice and flippant manner are annoying as hell and I find it a bit disgusting that in one part he jokes about how long it takes for the Stratofortress to crash, knowing it lead to the death of the crew.

"and only skimmed through about 30 minutes of the video, but that was more than enough. "

more than enough to accurately misrepresent about everything and remind me why I do not visit ATS frequently anymore...

If you do not have time/patience/mindset to watch a full doc, it is not recommended to watch it all and rather stay with 3 minute youtube bits. Easier to digest. Maybe next time read the disclaimer first before kneejerking.

/off and bye

a reply to: DAVID64

Jester is annoying as hell

had to stop..Jester is one of the most annoying characters ever... so whats his explanation..? they deliberately crashed the plane or faked it to prevent New Zealand pulling out..

a reply to: Infoshill

Honestly, I don't know. Since I could debunk two main points right off the bat made watching the rest a waste of time. Whoever "The Jester" is, he's annoying AF and 2 1/2 hours of that crap would have me jamming chopsticks in my ears.

a reply to: Acetradamus

Like I said, I'm not a "aircraft guy" but at about 1 hour, he implies that the pitch of the plane had nothing to do with it crashing. You realize these are not fighter jets, right? They are not made to climb at steep angles with heavy loads and if a muti ton load suddenly shifts, it can cause catastrophic imbalance, affecting the way the aircraft performs?
An MRAP weighs 14 to 18 tons. What do you think that would do to an aircraft's flight dynamics if that much weight shifted to the rear in a matter of seconds?

a reply to: Acetradamus

Maybe next time read the disclaimer first before kneejerking.

maybe before asking posters to watch 2.5 hours of video you give video description and main points you think are good talking points.

I don't know why OP and David64 are fighting. It says at the VERY BEGINNING of the mockumentary that the movie is a joke! It says it is based on "pseudoscience" and is quite clear that the whole movie is NOT meant to be taken as truth or veiled truth.

a reply to: KansasGirl

Then my apologies to the OP. I skipped the first few minutes to get to the main points of the video and that's my fault for not paying closer attention.

Again, my apologies. [ pulls foot out of mouth ]

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: KansasGirl

Then my apologies to the OP. I skipped the first few minutes to get to the main points of the video and that's my fault for not paying closer attention.

Again, my apologies. [ pulls foot out of mouth ]

I couldn't even FIND the part that shows and discusses the plane crash(es) because of all the silliness! 😂. At least you found the source of OP's thread.

But OP is convinced it's a real "documentary" so I'm wondering why OP doesn't believe what the makers of the movie tell us before the movie even starts!

OP?

originally posted by: Acetradamus

If you do not have time/patience/mindset to watch a full doc, it is not recommended to watch it all and rather stay with 3 minute youtube bits. Easier to digest. Maybe next time read the disclaimer first before kneejerking.

/off and bye

Why do you think anyone should sit through that video on the basis of your paltry description? No, I don't have the patience or the time. You have been here since 2011 and posted very little. If Zaphod or Slayer posted this video, I might make the attempt based simply on their excellent reputations here. I now they wouldn't do that without a good reason. You,, however, have no reputation, and your snippy reply here is all I need to know your OP is not worth the time.

a reply to: KansasGirl

This footage is not newly released. I have seen the footage at least 20 times in the past 5 years. It's around the 27-30 minute mark in the OP video. But you can find it all over YouTube with a simple search. IIRC it crashed on take off due to a unsecured load causing a massive shift in weight to the rear. It caused the nose of the plane to pitch up very fast and resulted in a stall causing the plane to fall out of the sky.

ETA. To kansasgirl, I was just letting you know if you want to see the footage its at the 27-30 min mark on the ops video. The rest was me rambling and nothing against you or your post

a reply to: 772STi

They had a chain fail on takeoff and the rear MRAP slid back through the aft bulkhead. IIRC the load was secured, but not the way policy called for it to be, so that if one chain broke the others wouldn't hold.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for the info, that's pretty much what I remembered. It's been 3+ years since I've read up on what happened. I think you and I even talked about this before years ago.

my friggin nitemare....nightmare....dang right out of evil haps.....

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 772STi

They had a chain fail on takeoff and the rear MRAP slid back through the aft bulkhead. IIRC the load was secured, but not the way policy called for it to be, so that if one chain broke the others wouldn't hold.

I think the point the video makes is that that is an explanation that is held to be true because it fits the scenario, rather than because the evidence supports it.

Oh yeah, and that the video is CG.


(The point, of course, was less than convincing, but the narrator's style somehow gave me a chuckle, so I ended up watching the whole darn thing!)

a reply to: DupontDeux

Except that there WAS evidence. The recorders had the Master Caution going off, as well as a warning about CG, they found broken chains in the wreckage, and the aft bulkhead had damage inconsistent with ground impact.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DupontDeux

Except that there WAS evidence. The recorders had the Master Caution going off, as well as a warning about CG, they found broken chains in the wreckage, and the aft bulkhead had damage inconsistent with ground impact.

Yes, yes, as mentioned,the point was not very convincing, but the *was* the point it was trying to make.