How To Make A Convincing looking Plane Crash

reply to post by Domo1

Couldn't you just reinforce the plane so that a portion laden with explosives would lodge into the building and detonate remotely?

Right, that might work but I don't know how you would do it exactly.
My theory come from studying the videos frame by frame, and in one seeing what looked like a missile, and other videos, what looks to me likes trails through either the flames, or the smoke.
And also based on what I mentioned before, which was what looked like one plane's worth of debris falling down from where the plane hit.
Also, studying videos of retired airliners being dismantled for scrap, and seeing how easily destroyed they are.

Granted I think the simplest explanation is that someone flew a plane into the buildings, but if you're of the opinion that the jet fuel wouldn't burn hot enough or whatever it seems like it would be easier not having to coordinate additional aircraft, missiles, all the people involved with every plane that takes off etc...

Mainly what I was getting at was how those big holes in the outer structure of the buildings got there. A plane making it would be like throwing a can of bear at a wrought iron iron fence and expecting the fence to break.

Looking at the video from the West Highway, which was really close to the South Tower, you can see multiple explosions going off right after (1, 2, and three, tenths of seconds) the plane hits.

continuing on,
Back to the beginning of the story, this was Sarasota local TV, broadcast from a TV broadcasting tower, and me watching by picking up that signal with an antenna, connected to my home TV.
How this becomes significant, is that at that very moment, when that plane I watched hit the second tower, the then-president, "W", was also in Sarasota, at Booker Elementary, at a pre-publicised photo-op event, the famous "Our Pet Goat" reading exercise. He and his staff would have been able to just tune in the Library TV set to the right channel and he would have been able to see the exact same thing as I did.
Of course there was no civilian reporter with a camera in Battery Park somehow sending this live feed to the network because the military had cordoned off the area and removed all the civilians for an anti-terrorism drill.
It would have had to have been military personnel with a secure satellite uplink and a camera doing surveillance "training" for terrorist hijacked airliners, and just happened to have spotted one by 'coincidence'.

This second bit of information that I want to include is a bit unrelated but it is in the area of what I consider my 911 personal experience.
One of the things involved with this place, Sarasota, Florida, is that you also find here, besides the president, the supposed ringleader of the hijackers who are alleged to have perpetrated all the events on 911, Mohamed Atta.
Right away, when I was in town, I would hear different people talking about how one way or another, they knew about, or knew, or knew people who knew, Mohamed Atta. He at one time or another, lived either three miles to the south of me, or 20 miles to the west of me.
Later, it came to my attention that the wife of my coworker was connected to Mohamed Atta. She worked at the Venice, Florida branch of the bank where Mohamed Atta had his account. He seems to have been attracted to her so always tried to have her as his teller whenever he went there, which was at least once a week, or more, depending on which version of the story you want to go with, mine, that I got from her, or the story that her husband remembers. The way I understood it, he was there every day they were open because he was there either with the flight school's owner, or was there on his account.
The important point is that she was very familiar with Mohamed Atta, and knew quite a bit about his dealings. So she told me that what really bothered her was on 911, seeing all these people killed, and then seeing them show the picture of the man responsible, "who I had looked into the eyes of, the very day before".
I was shocked when I heard those words because it goes directly against the version we are fed by the media and the government. So of course I had to quiz her on it but without spoiling her as a witness, I never told her how her testimony contradicted the "accepted" version.
As she told me, the time that she last saw Mohamed Atta was on the tenth, at 2:30 PM, and he was in the car that belonged to the flight school's owner, with his two Arab friends in the back seat (this would have been in the drive-through). He did not at all seem nervous or distracted but just as he always seemed.
She was very certain about the exact date and time, for one reason, the FBI had questioned her several times, at her work, in regards to the dealings of Atta, and why her name was so frequently associated with them at the bank.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I came over to respond.

There are way too many points to address, so I will do my best.

Have you ever worked on a film crew or a television station? Do you know how it works? OK, let's go slowly.

1:Conspiracy means involving a lot of people.

How many people do you suppose it would take to pull this off? You have all the news station in New York City, including the major networks and reporters from all over the world, including the BBC and Al Jazeera, not to mention from Germany, France, Spain, Russia, China and India. Reporters from those other countries do report from New York. They also report from Washington DC.

So for this to be a video conspiracy, all those reporters would have to be involved in streaming the conspiracy videos. So far, not one reporter has stepped forward, not even those who aren't supportive of us. This all means that every reporter would have to be hooked up to one central feed and only that feed must be broadcast. Which is impossible considering the fact that every reporter has their own film crew. This means every camera used by those crews must be on the same time code. So what you imply is that every reporter is involved.

Do you know what a Time Code is? That's the number displayed on the camera that shows how many minutes and seconds each frame is at.

Now you are also assuming all the networks, including Al Jazeera, the BBC, the CBC, France 1, Australia 1 and German news, Sky News as well as ABC, Fox, NBC, CBS, CNN, HLN and all the LOCAL channels were fed into one feed to broadcast.

So you are going to attempt to tell me that the news helicopters were on the same synchronized feed as France 1?
Which studio was this done in? You believe that someone went out and made B roll footage of the Twin Towers and then later edited a plane flying into it. Well then, can you explain how the videos from cell phones and home video recorders managed to get the same videos of planes flying into the towers? Did they get the feed sent to their phones and home video recorders? For that to work, every cell phone number was called at the same time and cameras that were NOT hooked up to TVs managed to get video feed?

So what you are proposing is this...people with their home video cameras NOT hooked up to TVs all received a playback signal? What home video camera is capable of this? Are you telling me that there are home video cameras with remote signal capability from satellite? Where does such a home video camera exist?

Let's understand this, when a news crew films something happening, usually they are hooked to the satellite van to send the signal through their own device. This is how you see something live as it happens. But that camera is recording at the same time, and they always go to the van to review it. But they cannot RECEIVE video signals, especially not from home video cameras or cell phones. And for them to be conspirators, they would have to have the video already edited. Hmm, so the news helicopters sent them edited videos? So the news helicopters are part of the conspiracy? This still does not explain cell phones or home video cameras.

Do you realize just how ridiculous that sounds? You are going to believe that every reporter out there that day were all given copies of an edited film to broadcast back to their station? An edited film means that someone took the time to manipulate it. That would be wonderful to think they all had the same image, but they didn't. It was filmed from every angle. So that means they would have had to edit films from every angle and then give copies to the reporters. But then it gets better, how did the person doing the editing of the films have access to *oh snap* to every cell phone and home video camera taken ON that morning AS the event happened.

You can't have it both ways. Either the film was edited and one signal sent of the same footage, or multiple people took multiple footage of the same event. We know that there was more than one film, therefore it makes it impossible for your scenario to work.

reply to post by WarminIndy

. . .all those reporters would have to be involved in streaming the conspiracy videos.

Did you read past the first post of the thread.
I placed a link on that other thread ("Would God be Happy with me playing GTA?") to the particular post that explains my actual experience.
You seem to be arguing against a "No Planes" theory, which I do not support.
The important theory I am supporting is that the military detail in Battery Park that morning doing an anti-terrorism drill were videoing the second plane that hit the south WTC tower, and it was being fed to W. through a local TV broadcast in Sarasota, Florida.

therefore it makes it impossible for your scenario to work.

What scenario?
I am saying there was a real plane, just not one hijacked and flown by Arabs with box cutters.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

. . .all those reporters would have to be involved in streaming the conspiracy videos.

Did you read past the first post of the thread.
I placed a link on that other thread ("Would God be Happy with me playing GTA?") to the particular post that explains my actual experience.
You seem to be arguing against a "No Planes" theory, which I do not support.
The important theory I am supporting is that the military detail in Battery Park that morning doing an anti-terrorism drill were videoing the second plane that hit the south WTC tower, and it was being fed to W. through a local TV broadcast in Sarasota, Florida.

therefore it makes it impossible for your scenario to work.

What scenario?
I am saying there was a real plane, just not one hijacked and flown by Arabs with box cutters.

edit on 17-9-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

No, you stated on the other thread that YOU witnessed that there were no people on board the plane. The title of this thread is about how easy it is to make a video of a plane crash.

What are you saying? Are you saying the videos were manipulated before, during or after the event? Which is it?

Well, if planes did hit it, then what? Someone flew the planes.

Now this leads and builds up theory upon theory. OK, so planes were used. Were they remote controlled? All four?

Now that's a pretty powerful remote control. Dude, people lose tiny remote control model airplanes all the time. The signal for the remote control doesn't have that great a distance.

So who flew the planes?

Let me ask this, have you ever met a terrorist? Do you know how they think and how they conspire these grand schemes? Probably you have never met a terrorist, so I am guessing you are kind of ignorant to how they think, as most of us don't know terrorists either.

Why is it hard to accept that Muslim Fundamentalists who would give their very lives for their cause would do such a thing? The Kamikazi pilots did the same thing. They accomplished war with the biggest Navy in the world and almost won. They sank destroyers and aircraft carriers.

So think about it, if Kamikazi pilots didn't care for their lives over that of their emperor's ideas, what makes Muslim Fundamentalists less capable?

I saw your video on youtube. What you have to understand when it comes to filming is that light is everything and distance is everything. If I have a camera at a certain location but I am a little higher up than someone else taking a video of the same thing, we will get two different perspectives.

High angle, low angle. Those are two shots that every film student learns. Let's say I am on the 50th floor of a building filming, but a person on the ground is filming the same event, they are going to get a high angle shot. The horizon line then makes the angles drastically different.

Let's do what every film and art student does. Let's draw a horizon line. Now let's draw dots as points in space. Now let's draw lines from those dots across the plain. If you are drawing in high angle 3D, then your lines in which you draw an object will now be a different size than if you were drawing from the horizon angle. That is called perspective.

Multiple angle images do not ever change perspective to accommodate a single angle. So you might see an object but it will always be in perspective to the horizon line of the viewer. You can't then just go to another image and apply the angles from an horizon line that does not fit.

Perspective is set in stone and is dictated by the horizon line. You can't get around that one. What you had in your video was multiple horizon lines from the images. Not any of them were the same horizon line. So therefore, you need to adjust to consider perspective.

Those planes did two things, they banked and the noses were not parallel to the ground, This changes the angles but does not change perspective. And they were flying pretty fast. The assumption you are making is this, for your angles to work, those planes must have continued to fly with the horizon line, parallel to the ground at all times. But they didn't.

So if you see an airplane that is beginning to descend and you take an image of that, it is going to be a completely different view than horizontal. And planes to not ascend or descend in sharp angles, it actually is a curve.

Again, that changes perspective to the viewers, according to their horizon lines.

reply to post by WarminIndy

No, you stated on the other thread that YOU witnessed that there were no people on board the plane.

Well read the newer posts where I explain what I did witness.
Start where I linked to.
I'll repeat the link.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
from May 17, 2013.
Start there.
I think you are getting confused from what the other posters were saying.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

No, you stated on the other thread that YOU witnessed that there were no people on board the plane.

Well read the newer posts where I explain what I did witness.
Start where I linked to.
I'll repeat the link.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
from May 17, 2013.
Start there.
I think you are getting confused from what the other posters were saying.

OK so you were watching the news from Sarasota, right? So the person in NY had set up a camera, right? But the person was not in front of it. That doesn't mean anything, you see that all the time, sometimes news reporters are not in front of the camera during live feeds. I've seen that many times.

When events this big happen, there is going to be confusion. Have you ever been watching the news and by some mistake you are looking at something else? Happens all the time.

So what's the issue with no one in front of the camera?

reply to post by WarminIndy

So what's the issue with no one in front of the camera?

The "issue" is that it was not "news".
If it was supposed to go out to the general public as news, they would have had a reporter there.
There wasn't, for one reason the military had cordoned off the area and moved all the civilians out.
The video was meant to just record the plane coming in and crashing.
The local news people in the studio in Sarasota were noticeably put off by there not being a reporter and had to improvise to not have dead air, and just started commenting on whatever they saw on the video feed.

Actually, there is the subject of " no dang planes" looming in this thread.....the first impact is suspicious....the second one looked r/c.....( the plane had funny antennae, like we used in the Air Force on drones....painted orange even....)~~~then the third one
Definately not.....a plane, you know, at the pentagon.
The first reporters there with video and a chopper said....and I'm not paraphrasing...." not enough debris to fill a suitcase "....same at Shanksville.
You know, the first ones there on the scene....bona fide reproters with video.....

reply to post by jmdewey60


Do you watch broadcast news at all? Sometime there are times when a camera is set up and the reporter is not there. I have seen it myself.

And you can see videos of reporters doing things like picking their noses without realizing the video feed is on.

GBP/JPY
Actually, there is the subject of " no dang planes" looming in this thread.....the first impact is suspicious....the second one looked r/c.....( the plane had funny antennae, like we used in the Air Force on drones....painted orange even....)~~~then the third one
Definately not.....a plane, you know, at the pentagon.
The first reporters there with video and a chopper said....and I'm not paraphrasing...." not enough debris to fill a suitcase "....same at Shanksville.
You know, the first ones there on the scene....bona fide reproters with video.....

Exactly what I said. That is the tone of the thread.

****ATTENTION****

Any Terms & Conditions infraction in the 9/11 forum may result in the termination of your account without warning.

reply to post by GBP/JPY

Definitely not.....a plane, you know, at the pentagon.

That may be but not what I am trying to discuss on this particular thread, trying to focus on the second plane at the WTC, that some people saw since they had a sort of heads-up from the first tower strike.
I agree with you on the behavior of the plane looking like it was remote controlled.
The title of the thread is meant to say that it was made to look like a plane crash where some hijackers were deliberately doing it.
From my eye-witness (if you can call it that) experience, it was flying with no one in it.
It was a real plane alright, just not one that had "United" painted on it.

reply to post by Domo1


You don't have to reinforce it. Aircraft aluminum is already strong, and the spars and keel beam will punch through the steel of the wall, just like you saw on 9/11.

Hell, you already have a B-25 that went all the way through the Empire State Building, at much lower speeds, as well as a Cessna that punched into a newspaper building after 9/11 to show you what planes can do when they hit buildings.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Here is a video of an Airbus A380.



This announcer says the wings are basically just a flying gas tank. The wings alone on this plane with baked sheets of aluminum themselves weigh 5 tons each. 10 tons in the wings alone. Wow.

I could not find a video of Boeing 757 construction but I am assuming it is about relatively the same. The only reinforcement on the wings of the Airbus is simply to hold the sheets together to give it bulk, nothing more than than that.

Now granted, I am a woman. I don't know much about construction and engineering, even though other women might know, but there are other things I do know. I know filmmaking and editing film. And this was what the title was about, how easy it is to make a video of a plane crash.

To pull that one off of hitting the Twin Towers requires a lot more than just some guy with a video camera. And the remote control, have you seen how the experts have trouble with that? It requires testing, more testing, and even more testing. Because remote controls are just radio signals with a limited distance. And really, the only things they can remote control right now are cars. A Hummer isn't the same size as a Boeing 757.

I think maybe people are thinking that a Boeing 757 can be controlled like a drone. That's something I don't know about, not being in construction or engineering, but it seems a lot of effort goes into actually flying a Boeing 757.

This is a video of a Hummer that is remote controlled. Look how close that guy has to stand to it. He can't get very far away. To make this work, he had to put the controlled parts in the back.



So to do this to a Boeing 757 means you would have to rebuild the entire cockpit to accommodate the thingy to make it work. I don't think it's possible because there are too many variables and parts to consider. You would have not only control the speed but each wing themselves and each pedal and every dial with those pull things that pilots have to move. Wow! That's a lot of stuff to remember to do.

But filmmaking and news broadcasting, just being in the right time at the right place does not mean you will get the best shot, and since live events means you have a second or two to catch the event, most reporters can't be on the mark all the time.

But when people say "staged event" they really don't know what they are talking about. Staged means the scene was set up with all the people involved already in place. A staged event requires a person who shouts "Action", because that's the way you do it. But every filmmaker will tell you that you don't get it right the first time every time and that's why you keep filming the same shot over and over until you do get it right. Even Jaws was not a one time shot. Guerrilla filmmakers aren't even that good, but they aren't staging events.

To imply a remote control plane means you would have to stage it, and there's no director in the world that could be that lucky enough to pull this off. Simply unbelievable from a film perspective.

What every conspiracy theory video has been since the event, was edited film of the already filmed event. They took only a few videos and spliced them and edited them to attempt to convince you that the original film was edited as the event took place. There is no editing software capable of doing that.

I mean really, are conspiracy theorists even listening to themselves? 9/11 was not "Mise en Scene".

reply to post by WarminIndy

I think maybe people are thinking that a Boeing 757 can be controlled like a drone.

I think you may not be up to speed on 911 research because there are videos made before 9/11/01 of the military flying retired airliners in the desert by remote control.
Whatever the method was that destroyed the towers would have been seen ahead of time to be capable of destroying the evidence of extra steering mechanism had been added to the crashed planes.
It may well have been 757's crashing into the towers on 911 but the mainstream media version of the story is that it was 767's. (it actually looks like a 757 in the Alonso video of the second plane)
This image is a comparison between the plane in the Alonso video, and a 3D modeling program screenshot angled to match the plane in the video after correcting for the tilt of the camera by using the building in the frame as a guide.
If you look at just the outline of the engine pods (and the rest of the plane too), you can see that it is a match.
I made that model shot back in 2009 to put into my video about 911 (linked here). Which is comparing three different 911 videos to put the path of the plane on a map. The title reflects my conclusion that it banked around the Statue of Liberty.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Neither plane at the WTC looked like a 757. The 757 is a narrow body, neither plane there was a narrow body.

The "pods" are the center wing box and wheel wells for the main landing gear.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Here are the planes

United Airlines 175 and American Airlines 11 were both 767-222.
American Airlines 77 was a 767-223.
United Airlines 93 was a 757-222.

I don't know what the designation of 222 and 223 is.

Diagram of 767

Which one of these planes do you think was remote controlled? We know that 4 planes left airports with manifests that included passengers and crews. The security cameras show people boarding those planes. For your theory to work, something happened to every passenger and crew member on each plane.

This is a fantastic story full of suspense and drama at every turn. Missing passengers hidden somewhere and maybe killed just so they won't be on the planes that were remote controlled. Why take the passengers off and kill them if you are going to kill a thousand more people in buildings? Why not just let them stay on the plane, unaware of impending danger?

Why even board the crew, if the plane was outfitted to accommodate remote control? Remote control planes are designed only to look like a passenger plane on the outside. They aren't made for passengers to sit in, let alone a crew. Come on, be sensible, ok?

And like I said before, there is no director in the world who could even attempt something close to this. They got it right three times, but the fourth they were not so lucky at, because it crashed in Shanksville. So if the remote controller could lose the Shanksville one, then it implies they were incredibly lucky with the other three.

Do you really think so? Honestly, do you really think some shadow entity had passengers and crews board planes that were outfitted for no passengers and crews, and then killed them somewhere else just to fly the planes into buildings to kill other people...? What's the point of all of that?

Maybe the more reasonable explanation is that terrorist hijacked planes (they had done it before) and then crashed into buildings for the purpose of killing people in a jihad. You have constructed line upon line a more massive theory that sounds so fantastical, it has to keep getting bigger as the story embellishes.

I mean we went from the first theory of "No Jews were working that day, they all got calls from Israel to stay home" to "these planes were remote controlled to fly into buildings that had nanothermite painted on interior walls to make sure they exploded properly, but just to be effective, bombs were placed on certain floors and then someone took B roll footage of the WTC and airplanes and then edited the footage to send out over the globe".

Do you suppose NYC will be destroyed yet again like Independence Day? Wasn't that awesome special effects? Those set designers were creative and made NYC look real. Wait, that was done on set, not in front of thousands of witnesses with video cameras and cell phones.

Your theory is just a fantastic story.