How To Make A Convincing looking Plane Crash

reply to post by Zaphod58

It was painted in United colors, and the markings in the pictures from the videos match the United paint scheme used in 2001.

I think that there is one still photo where you can see a plane that clearly looks like a United paint job.
What I am saying is that I saw a video that was "raw" footage, meaning it was live.
Every single video that you can find on the internet of the 911 plane was first in the custody of a federal agency.

There was no program to test fly commercial aircraft remotely.

I don't know how you could know that.
There is a video out there that I have seen of the military flying old airliner lanes remotely in the desert.

The commercial aircraft that were used that way (the 707 and 727) were purpose used for specific reasons. The military doesn't have a program to remotely fly commercial aircraft.

I don't know, again, how you could know that.

And my comment is if they're dying anyway, what do they care? And if they were, as so many say, true patriots, why would they care if they were killed as long as the truth got out.

Wait another 40 years.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I remember watching it live, and there was no doubt in my mind then, and no doubt in my mind now that it was a United plane.

I know because I follow the budgets of the military, as well as other sources. There was no reason to create a remote control commercial plane program.

I also know because I've read the studies. The 707 was a NASA test to see if a new non-explosive fuel worked. It didn't. The more recent 727 was to study what happened inside the cabin of a plane during a crash.

So the people that have were involved aren't going to have a crisis of conscience, and talk for forty years? Not one of them is going to try to talk, or have a deathbed confession?

reply to post by Zaphod58

I remember watching it live, and there was no doubt in my mind then, and no doubt in my mind now that it was a United plane.

Like I said to Warminindy, I would be interested to hear about this since you would be the first person to describe this to me.
Or is that it?
That you were watching TV and all of a sudden there was a plane and you thought, "That's a United Airlines plane!"

Can you point out which video you saw that is on YouTube or whatever?

Anyway, I would like to have you recount your experience when you saw the live plane crash and what you thought about it.

reply to post by jmdewey60


No, I watched it, and watched slowed down replays of it starting almost immediately after impact. In every one of them, it looked exactly like the United colors, and matched up to the United scheme used in 2001. I plane watch, a lot, and I lived in the flight path to the airport, so I saw a lot of United flights, as well as others. A quick look, and sometimes just a glance can tell a lot to experienced plane watchers. That plane matched United perfectly.

reply to post by Zaphod58
What exactly were you watching "almost immediately"?
Did you make your own recording of the live version, like you had your VCR running when it happened?

I'm still curious how you seem to have in your possession a superior copy of the video than is what out there for public consumption.

According to what sub-forum this thread is in, it seems at least someone thinks I am hoaxing. I think anyone trying to describe their experience is going to come off as having some sort of biased recollection after so many years.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Have you ever heard of the lone gunmen t.v. show

reply to post by jmdewey60


I didn't say it was a video that I made. Or that it was superior. The news feed I was watching replayed the impact repeatedly, including the footage of it just before impact. When I watched it, several times, everything matched up to United. I have not seen anything since that has led me to doubt that it was a United flight.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I am not familiar with what video it was that made it so clear.
There is a video out there since a Freedom of Information Request suite resulted in a release of video and photo evidence from NIST,

that looks more like what I saw, which is a grey monochrome looking plane.
There is another video that was out there since that day,

which I have to assume is what you were watching, and seems to have a sort of blue look to it.
Any clearer version of this video has not been available before the NIST data dump that I just mentioned.
The second video was taken by a helicopter over Washington Square, about 1.8 miles away, if I remember right, so had quite a bit of air for the light to go through which could have given it a bit of a tint.

Those two videos are ones that I made by taking each frame and cropping it. This is something that I did with all the 911 videos, as you can see in the other video that I posted on this thread, so I am pretty familiar with what these things look like.

reply to post by jmdewey60


It wasn't clear where you could see the logo or the name, but there are certain portions of the paint scheme that you can identify as matching to United if you are experienced at it. Those parts matched up in the pictures that I saw in the following days, as well as the video that I saw that day.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Thanks.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time and I appreciate the serious way that you deal with these questions.

But, I think that there was complicity by the media in reinforcing this hoax (what I consider the whole 911 event to be) by giving all these suggestions like naming the supposed flight and saying it was hijacked, and then playing back video that was admittedly not the same as what was live.
The story is that what the chopper sends out live is highly compressed, so what was live was blurry, then once the craft landed, the hard copy was taken off and that was the higher resolution version that was shown later.
For all I know, they could have added a bit of color to it, and when you watched it enough times, you had your earlier memory "replaced" with the sharper version, the one that "they" want you to remember.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I had a coworker at the time and friend that worked (and still does) for United. Some of his coworkers at the station knew at least one crew member on that flight. That added to what I saw that day, and some other things that I was told, all lead me to believe that was United 175. I have not seen anything to change my mind to date.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Some of his coworkers at the station knew at least one crew member on that flight.

That would be the sort of thing that I would be interested in finding out more about.

What I am saying about there not being an actual flight 175 scheduled is not something that I found out myself, but what has been presented by other researchers who supposedly discovered this themselves.
I think that it fits with this "mystery plane" that I saw (like I said, very up close and zoomed-in on with a powerful lens, to where I could see fine detail), that does not fit the mainstream media story.

I don't think that this whole thing, about verifying that there were real people lost from that supposed flight, has been investigated enough, mainly because any media outlet with the resources to do it would be prevented by the people who own and control those media companies.

I realize that there are some interesting cover stories for a few of the supposed victims but they seem almost too good to be true.

The one person who I know who was familiar with one of the 911 characters, knew Mohammad Atta, since he lived right here in my area, in Sarasota County. And from what she has told me, he was right here, at least up to around 3:00 PM on the tenth, the day before 911, and acting perfectly normal and following his regular routine.

reply to post by Zaphod58


jmdewey gets more confusing as he goes on and on.

What I am saying about there not being an actual flight 175 scheduled is not something that I found out myself, but what has been presented by other researchers who supposedly discovered this themselves.

Who are these ressearchers? Were they "Truthers"?

And how do you know every video was in the hands of Federal agencies? Does that come from "Truthers" also? OK, you said you were sitting in your home, watching a "special feed" of some random camera that you say was set up in Battery Park. But then you say you used a high zoom device that you could see the plane was not United 175.

But jmdewey, do you understand that when a plane crash happens, the plane manifest would be taken by the authorities for the purpose of discovering who was sitting where, so their families could be informed. United 175 had a manifest, that's how the stewards and stewardesses were able to say who was sitting where. That information was relayed from them to the ground, Betty Ong was telling AA what seat she was in and what seats the terrorists were in. Every plane you were ever on has a manifest, and the flight attendant checks your name with your boarding pass when you board the plane.

Unfortunately, the devastation of the planes hitting the buildings and the destruction of the manifests, we can only rely on the ticket information in the computers from the check-in from whatever airline company they bought the tickets from. There has been a little difference since then about boarding, but when I flew this summer from Chicago to Toronto, on Porter Air, they called me by my first name from the moment I showed them my passport. Every computer of Porter Air had me registered as belonging on their flight.

So to say that United 175 didn't exist is pure rubbish. It took off from its origin and was tracked on radar and witnessed by other pilots. In the investigation, all the air traffic control dialogue had been recorded as was required. So when you hear the air traffic controllers trying to contact United 175, you know it was real because those air traffic controllers were doing their jobs that day. They didn't get a heads up to tell them it was just a conspiracy from the government. They were in contact with the pilot to tell him it was ok to taxi and then take off.

Not only do we know the seats they were in because they bought tickets that designated their seats, but they were also on the security cameras as they boarded the planes. That's how we know who they were. They checked-in, and it was then put on the planes' manifests. Flight attendants on United 175 checked the manifest as the men boarded, so don't even play that it was remote controlled.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Sorry Zaphod, I forgot it was you I was replying to. I got in the middle of it and thought I was replying to jmdewey, sorry for the confusion.

jmdewey60
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

Some of his coworkers at the station knew at least one crew member on that flight.

That would be the sort of thing that I would be interested in finding out more about.


The one person who I know who was familiar with one of the 911 characters, knew Mohammad Atta, since he lived right here in my area, in Sarasota County. And from what she has told me, he was right here, at least up to around 3:00 PM on the tenth, the day before 911, and acting perfectly normal and following his regular routine.

edit on 21-9-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

What would be more interesting is if she saw him on September 12. If he were just a regular guy doing his regular thing, then he should have been doing his regular thing on September 12 as well.

An active, in-service, United Airlines plane was not used. Again, not a theory, but what I saw on TV as mentioned above.

There was no so-called "flight 175", that just happens to be a fact. Mainstream media said that there was such a flight but that was only a cover story to explain where the plane came from that hit the south WTC tower as mentioned above.

The plane did exist but it came from an old military airport, where the signal changed coming from the plane, supposedly changed by the "hijackers". This would be a "theory" but based on the reality that there was no actual hijackers, as mentioned in an earlier post.

There was an actual plane that crashed into the WTC south tower, just not one accurately described by the mainstream media.

Do you realize just how big your conspiracy is getting?
Wouldn't it be easier to get a few jihadist to board the planes and fly them into the buildings?
I mean they have been known to blow themselves up a few times just to kill a few people.

That way you don't have to hire all these other people to tie up the loose ends.

reply to post by WarminIndy

OK, you said you were sitting in your home, watching a "special feed" of some random camera that you say was set up in Battery Park.

I don't know what you mean by repeatedly saying "random".

The only people who could have been the source of that feed was the military.
That is not "random", it's very specific and has to have been pre-planned.

But then you say you used a high zoom device that you could see the plane was not United 175.

Now you seem to be going back to another thread where I made a post prior to the most recent posts on this thread.

I actually saw it very up close and through a magnifying device to where I could see that no one was in the cockpit to fly it, and no one was visible through the passenger windows, so it was instantly obvious to me that it was flown remote controlled.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The other thread was on video games, so I did not want to go into detail and posted a link to this thread where I did go into detail, saying that I saw the plane throgh the lens of a camera with a zoom lens, which is, in case you don't know, a magnifying device.

It seems like all you are doing so far on this thread is to misquote me and to throw out a lot of theories as if I was somehow supporting every kook 911 theory out there.

That information was relayed from them to the ground, Betty Ong was telling AA what seat she was in and what seats the terrorists were in.

You are talking about flight 11.

So to say that United 175 didn't exist is pure rubbish.

You are just throwing that out there without supporting it.
What you are saying is rubbish. The plane was not tracked all the way by radar. It was being tracked by a transponder that mysteriously changed somewhere along the route. So there is no way to know if it was the same plane, and it happened right when it was crossing an Air Force base.
What you need to find out is if there is a record of there being a such thing as a "flight 175" before the air traffic controllers were told that there was. The Air Force was running drills that day with a lot of fake planes being shown as if they were real, simulating hijacked airliners. "Flight 175" could have been one of the simulations for the drill that they decided to "go live" with once they had a plane up in the air to take over its identity.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

OK, you said you were sitting in your home, watching a "special feed" of some random camera that you say was set up in Battery Park.

I don't know what you mean by repeatedly saying "random".

The only people who could have been the source of that feed was the military.
That is not "random", it's very specific and has to have been pre-planned.

It was random because there is no evidence you even know who the camera operator was and can't even tell us the channel you saw it on other than as you said "random channel". You can't even tell us the names of the reporters on the news you were watching.

Most people remember what they were doing that day, you even claim that. But I told you the channel I was watching and who the anchors were. I showed you a video from the news helicopters from the local NYC stations, but you didn't watch it, did you? No, it's just way too easy to keep building up in your mind a conspiracy theory that you forgot to include the most fundamental points. You said the station was in Sarasota, I want to know which station it was.

I was watching WGHP Channel 8 from High Point/Greensboro North Carolina, the anchors were Cindy Farmer and Neill McNeill. I seem to recall Tom Britt also being in the station. That evening on the same channel, we were told that Richmond and Charlotte might have also been targets.

But you, don't even know what channel you were watching. You took a mental note about being hungry and your girlfriend making something to eat after you passed the remote control back and forth.

What did she make to eat and how long did you have this girlfriend? Is she still with you today?

reply to post by WarminIndy

Not only do we know the seats they were in because they bought tickets that designated their seats, but they were also on the security cameras as they boarded the planes. That's how we know who they were. They checked-in, and it was then put on the planes' manifests. Flight attendants on United 175 checked the manifest as the men boarded, so don't even play that it was remote controlled.

That video is probably in the same place where the video is from the plane hitting the Pentagon and the yellow Ryder truck at Oklahoma City.

Anyway, you are just making up a scenario of how you think this all happened, while none of this supposed evidence actually exists.

reply to post by WarminIndy

What would be more interesting is if she saw him on September 12. If he were just a regular guy doing his regular thing, then he should have been doing his regular thing on September 12 as well.

This is completely irrelevant speculation since it obviously could never happen, no matter what.
Atta and company would have been on that airplane that flew off to Saudi Arabia.

What is significant is that the FBI said at the Moussaoui trial that Atta was flying from Boston to Maine on that day, while he was really in Florida.