How To Make A Convincing looking Plane Crash

reply to post by jmdewey60

That number gets reduced considerably when you figure in just the nonexistent "passengers".
Another thing to consider is how these planes flying across the continent did not even have enough passengers on their manifests to pay for the fuel it took to get them there.
My point was that it was not "hush money checks" for people on the manifests to go into hiding, but for certain actors to play the role of knowing a supposed person who matched a name on the manifest.

You don't think the media didn't go to each and every passengers 'listed address' to get comments from the people on the other side of the door?
I'll bet that many of these 'actors' still live in the same houses. You can go visit them if you like.

And airlines have been money losing operations until the last year or so. Ask anyone who trades stocks.
Mergers and goin out of business have been common place. Losing money on individual flights is the reason for airline troubles. Even if you can prove these particular planes were losing money on that day it's not conspiratorial.

So why don't you tell us just how many people you feel it took to pull off this conspiracy?
And how many it is taking to keep things under wraps?
This will give us an idea of how many hush checks are being written each month.

reply to post by WarminIndy

The rest of the country saw the plane hit, but for jmdewey sitting in his home in Sarasota, he was the only person in this country or on this planet that watched the live feed from a random camera in NYC as though it were CCTV meant only for the President who was in Sarasota also.

Can you describe what you saw, and I mean what you saw live as it happened, rather than what might have been replayed or brought in from another source later?

Whatever you saw live as a plane crash I can guarantee you was not what I saw live, which was the view from the lower esplanade at the southernmost part of Battery Park, just slightly to the north of the Coast Guard station piers and the terminal for the Staten Island Ferry.
As far as being "the only one", I am the only person that I know about who saw that and am talking about it on the internet, but anyone watching that same station in Sarasota at that moment could have seen the same thing that I did.
My theory is that they figured that it was a tolerable risk since they think most people are kind of stupid and will accept the brainwashing and forget about what they saw, replaced by TV implanted false memories by repetition of the "accepted" version.

It wasn't a "random camera", it was a camera in the spot then occupied by the military for an anti-terrorism drill, with the area cordoned off for all civilians, so it was not random but planned and previously connected by satellite uplink to record their "drill".
As for being "closed circuit", it would have been encrypted so only whoever it was meant to see it, could, for example whoever was placed in the Sarasota TV station who could put it up on the local broadcast.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You don't think that just maybe, the reporter or the newsroom was in contact with the FAA, and someone told them there was another plane heading to New York City, so they were looking for it? I mean, that would make sense wouldn't it. It's not like the newsroom and the FAA talk, or that reporters and their vans carry scanners and listen to FAA and ATC frequencies and could find out that something else was heading their way. Let's just jump straight to the "the news was in on it and helped to fake it, because I saw something weird."

reply to post by samkent

You don't think the media didn't go to each and every passengers 'listed address' to get comments from the people on the other side of the door?

No.
If you know about any examples of that, I would be very interested in hearing about it.
You have to keep in mind that the "media" was fully complicit with the whole 911 deception.

reply to post by HomerinNC

A special television set that only you have, that picks up only certain broadcasts?

Right.
My way of describing it like that comes from comments I have gotten in the past on this forum, where someone would say, "Well, I didn't see anything like that!"
Well your TV did not show you that because you were in another state, and you had no way to tune into that signal.
My TV could because it was close enough to the broadcast tower to pick it up.
Anyone close enough to Sarasota that morning had a "special" TV to pick up that particular video feed, but it would only do that if it was turned on and tuned to the right channel, and you were watching it.
All those things lined up for me on my TV, while whatever TV that you were watching could never give you that video, no matter what you did.

reply to post by WarminIndy

What you have done is now implicated the Sarasota news station with collusion and conspiracy. That's a really fantastical story, "Shadow entities contacted the Sarasota station to broadcast a live feed of a fake plane crash fro the President to see, but only meant for the President. Sarasota dropped the ball because jmdewey saw it, now jmdewey is on to our little scheme".

I'm not claiming that.
That is your take on it, not mine.
I'm saying that it is probably normal for someone from the Secret Service to show up at the local TV station when the president was going to be doing a photo-op event, as at least a media liaison.
They could say something to the station staff that they had to have access to the controls of what went out, and that they needed constant military video feeds for "national security".
Once that is established, then all there is left to do is for that person to make the right keystrokes to make it happen.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Why don't you tell me how many other people in Sarasota saw this same video feed. Can you give the names of people who were watching from their homes who might also have seen this?

I have yet to have anyone describe to me the plane they saw hit the second WTC tower live.
Can you describe what you saw?
If you can, then you will be the first.
How many people do you know who can describe the plane they saw live hit the tower?
Can you tell me how many people in your town saw the same thing that you did?

The rest of us were changing from local to national to see what was going on.

Exactly!
That would be an important calculation on the part of the perpetrators.
I was watching "local" because I did not have the remote, and it was left at a random channel when my girlfriend got up to go into the kitchen.
If I had the remote in my hand, I would have switched to the network headquarters talking heads, like they figured everyone else would be doing.
That, I think, goes a long ways towards answering the question of why they would take that chance of airing the closeup video of the crash, because almost no one would have been watching.

Wait...I'm trying to fathom this...George Bush orders the destruction, but needs a live video of nothing meant only for him?

I think that you have a really weird take on this. Just because it was not a "real" hijacking, that doesn't make it "nothing", as you put it. It really would be something if the plane malfunctioned and it was exposed as being a rigged false flag.
Bush would have had to know right away if they pulled it off, otherwise he would be headed for a country without an extradition treaty with the US.

You, jmdewey, were not "in the know" so they dropped the ball by letting you see it.

You can see how effective I am in getting the administration in prison.
That would have been taken into consideration, that the media would never touch my testimony or even try to investigate it.

reply to post by jmdewey60

You have to keep in mind that the "media" was fully complicit with the whole 911 deception.

So even more people are in on it?
Just how many hush money checks can the government print?

What about the news media from Iran? Are they getting hush money checks?
I'll bet the former leader of Iran wanted nothing more than to stick his finger in the eye of the US government by printing the 'real story of the coverup'.
But he allowed his citizen reporters to take hush money checks without cutting their heads off?

So guess news outlets all over the world are getting their monthly hush money checks?

So what about journalism graduates from college today?
When do they start getting checks to 'avoid the conspiracy''?
Is it when they first get hired? Or does it start in their last year of college?
You certainly don't want them to write their theisis on the hidden conspiracy of 911 do you?

Is Bradly Manning getting checks?
What about Snowden?
Julian Assange?

reply to post by WarminIndy

So what you are telling us is that you didn't have cable and you were watching this from the signal from the antenna?

That's right.
I had recently disconnected my cable.
I could do that because I had two phone lines put in, one I was using just for DSL internet connection.
At that time, I was more interested in going online than watching TV.

reply to post by Zaphod58

You don't think that just maybe, the reporter or the newsroom was in contact with the FAA, and someone told them there was another plane heading to New York City, so they were looking for it? I mean, that would make sense wouldn't it. It's not like the newsroom and the FAA talk, or that reporters and their vans carry scanners and listen to FAA and ATC frequencies and could find out that something else was heading their way. Let's just jump straight to the "the news was in on it and helped to fake it, because I saw something weird."

I appreciate your wanting to deal with the facts rather than to only theories.
What I am describing as the peculiar events of that day, is what I remember being said, which did not specify who the entity was with the camera, other than saying "someone". That was the exact word used, "someone with a camera, set up in Battery Park, south of the WTC towers".
And this was coming out of the mouth of the local Sarasota news announcer person.
There were two people who were talking, a man and a woman, who I did not see, but it was the woman who said they were connecting to that feed.
When they did, the camera was looking down at the piers and the water, then over downtown Brooklyn.
I suppose that whoever was operating the camera was either wearing headphones, or probably just had the mic turned off. But I would say that someone else or himself was connected to some overseeing authority who were offering feedback to get the camera pointed correctly.
I definitely do not think that the people I was hearing doing commentary were "in on it".
I think the main talking heads at the network headquarters were in on it, concerning the whole 911 script.
As for the video feed that I saw, I think it would have been done by some elite "anti-terrorism" military unit, and having nothing to do with the ordinary media.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I am sorry, but can you name the local tv news reporters that you would be watching if you watched the news?

I can tell you who I was watching on WGHP...Cindy Farmer and Neill McNeill. Now who do you watch in Sarasota? You can provide us with details of the remote control and your girlfriend, but not once have you said who you were watching from what news channel.

Did you know this..jmdewey, did you know that Charlotte was called a target and so was Richmond, Virginia? Did you know that the Bank of America building was evacuated, I have friends who worked there that day. Did you know that Greensboro airport was locked down because of this?

But you wouldn't be aware of anything at all because you watched from your "special tv" a nameless man and woman, on a channel that you can't even tell us what it was.

Did you know that just days before 9/11 that a Muslim man was arrested in Charlotte for taking video of the Bank of America building? If you lived in North Carolina, you would have known this.


Three of my brothers were active military at that time. Two were in the Navy, one in the Air Force, and all of them were deployed the evening of 9/11. Ask them what they think, they will tell you that the planes were hijacked and did exactly what happened.

You forgot that in just moments after it happened, Buckingham Palace was evacuated and the queen was flown away for safety. Why would the United Kingdom do this if they thought this was a plan by the US government to make a fake video of planes. Why was the Hague evacuated? Why was Bill Clinton grounded in Australia if this were just a concerted attack from the government against the United States. Are you telling me that Buckingham Palace just overreacted?

That makes no sense at all, jmdewey, for those governments to evacuate their most important government facilities if they all knew it was just our government doing it and the threat was only in the United States.

What you saw jmdewey, was just a camera set up in Battery Park. That is all you saw. But unfortunately you can't even prove that is what you saw. Now did Buckingham Palace and The Hague get the satellite feed from Sarasota?

They don't have "special tvs" with antennas that can pick up local Sarasota news. Did all of those air traffic controllers ground every plane so no planes could enter or exit the United States and all of those people in Canada that took plane passengers into their homes, were they also able to get the same Sarasota news on their tvs as well?

Only you saw it. But how many air traffic controllers can tell you how they saw the planes on their radars? Pittsburgh didn't get Sarasota news on their "special tvs" but they saw the Shanskville plane coming and evacuated Pittsburgh air traffic control tower.

You know, that's the same plane that conspiracy theorists said landed in Cleveland, removed all the passengers, then flew to Cincinnati then to Shanksville. But here's the run down on that...Cleveland control didn't know the plane had been hijacked. Cleveland control kept asking for the plane to respond. Mohammed Atta didn't respond to Cleveland control. Cleveland then watched on radar as it flew out of range, meaning it was now being picked up by Cincinnati control. Then the air traffic control gets a call that the plane was hijacked, by that time Pittsburgh is aware and does not try to contact the plane, instead they realize the danger and evacuate the tower.

This is the same plane that conspiracy theorists have accused Cleveland control of being part of the conspiracy.



Listen to this, Cleveland control is in a mass panic and confusion attempting to contact United 93. Two other pilots have the visual of United 93. Mohammed Atta responds that he has a bomb aboard. But no, you had a "special tv" that was the only one who got it.

Now are you suggesting those pilots and air traffic controllers from Cleveland, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh are all involved in the conspiracy? All of these air traffic controllers all over the United States now had to quickly ground the planes and the only place to send the ones still in the air was to Canada.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Quite a few non news sources were in play that day. I think far more likely than adding more people to an already crowded conspiracy, someone near them saw 175 in the distance and pointed it out and they were using the camera to try to see what it was.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Now did Buckingham Palace and The Hague get the satellite feed from Sarasota?

They don't have "special tvs" with antennas that can pick up local Sarasota news.

There was no feed from sarasota.
The feed was from a part of Battery Park that was occupied by the military.
They would have had some sort of secure satellite uplink.
Anyone with the ability to access that satellite and had the encryption code could have watched it if they knew when to watch, and what band or whatever.

Like I said earlier, I worked second shift so never watched local news. I was woken up early by my girlfriend, otherwise I would have slept through the whole thing.

What you saw jmdewey, was just a camera set up in Battery Park. That is all you saw. But unfortunately you can't even prove that is what you saw.

It was announced before going to that feed that it was a camera in Battery Park, south of the WTC towers.
Later I went online and checked with Google maps and Windows maps that now goes by the name "Bing" and matched up the spot that I saw in the video.

That makes no sense at all, jmdewey, for those governments to evacuate their most important government facilities if they all knew it was just our government doing it and the threat was only in the United States.

I think the answer to that should be obvious, that they were hoaxing the world, which includes everyone except themselves.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Quite a few non news sources were in play that day. I think far more likely than adding more people to an already crowded conspiracy, someone near them saw 175 in the distance and pointed it out and they were using the camera to try to see what it was.

OK, then who is the "someone" and who is the "they"?

I think that the camera operator was pointing first to spots that would give a fix on their exact location, then whoever was in contact with radar information could figure what direction they could find the plane at.
The camera was looking off towards Staten Island before the plane could have been spotted by eye.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You would be surprised at the distances I've spotted planes the size of a 767 at. But for this to be true and part of the conspiracy that's even more people that would have to be involved. You're already looking at the people to demo the buildings, the people dealing with the planes, all the news directors, etc. And twelve years later we haven't heard a whisper. We know all about other super secret programs, but not one whisper of this. Not one death bed confession, no whistleblowers, nothing, despite all the people that would have to be involved.

jmdewey60
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

Quite a few non news sources were in play that day. I think far more likely than adding more people to an already crowded conspiracy, someone near them saw 175 in the distance and pointed it out and they were using the camera to try to see what it was.

OK, then who is the "someone" and who is the "they"?

I think that the camera operator was pointing first to spots that would give a fix on their exact location, then whoever was in contact with radar information could figure what direction they could find the plane at.
The camera was looking off towards Staten Island before the plane could have been spotted by eye.

edit on 20-9-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

OK, then who is the "someone" and who is the "they"?

That's a good question, who is the "someone" and who is the "they"? So far you haven't even said what news station this broadcast from and did not say the names of the tv anchors.

That makes no sense. If you have been in Manhattan, which I have, you can see people with cameras all the time. I was there as someone was filming people walking down the sidewalk as they were filming for a documentary.

Let's go over your theory again....

Planes were used
Planes were not used
United 175 didn't exist
The camera operator was filming United 175 to make a fake video of a fake plane....
The camera operator was getting radar information for a non-existent plane
The camera operator was the only camera capable of sending the live feed, of a non-existent plane, to Sarasota.

So you are telling us that George Bush was being fed a fake video of a fake plane from a camera set up to film for a real plane, but the real plane didn't exist, but the camera operator was able to edit the film as it was broadcast live to Sarasota to make it look like a real plane, but at the same time was getting radar information to look in the right direction, for a plane that did not exist. Just so he could edit it live....to make George Bush think it was a real plane...and yet George Bush was the master architect of this whole conspiracy designed to invade Iraq for oil, placing the entire aviation industry on hold for a month. All for a fake video that was designed for him only to see.

But United 175 did exist, it existed on the radar from the air traffic control towers. It existed when it boarded the passengers, it did exist when it taxied down the runway. It did exist when it hit. I think it's sad you just spent so many years trying to formulate a conspiracy theory that you have to make bigger and bigger each time you tell it.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Let's go over your theory again....

Planes were used
Planes were not used
United 175 didn't exist
The camera operator was filming United 175 to make a fake video of a fake plane....
The camera operator was getting radar information for a non-existent plane
The camera operator was the only camera capable of sending the live feed, of a non-existent plane, to Sarasota.

A plane hit the south tower of the WTC. Not a theory, but what I saw on my TV, at my house, on local Sarasota, Florida news, live, on 9/11/01.

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.

reply to post by jmdewey60


And your evidence of the "non-active plane" is? You do realize that even today, 12 years later the military doesn't fly 767s, right? And Boeing's records are pretty complete as to who got what aircraft, and when it was built. And you can take the MSN and Serial number and hunt the planes down to find out what happened to them.

And if N612UA wasn't used, what happened to it? That's even MORE people being added to this. It's amazing how many people have been added, and not one person has had a crisis of conscience and talked, or made a deathbed confession, or anything.

reply to post by Zaphod58

And your evidence of the "non-active plane" is?

My "evidence" is what I saw, which was a plane that was painted a light grey color, with no markings on it to identify it, whether numbers or names.

You do realize that even today, 12 years later the military doesn't fly 767s, right?

This would not have been a regular in-service military plane but one of the ones that they were using to test remote control flying with, which would have been sold as a retired airline plane for scrap.

And if N612UA wasn't used, what happened to it? That's even MORE people being added to this.

I'm sure that whatever plane was named in the cover story has been melted down by now.

It's amazing how many people have been added, and not one person has had a crisis of conscience and talked, or made a deathbed confession, or anything.

My comment on that is that you should think about what happens to whistleblowers, for example how Snowdon has been hounded for telling the world what people already suspected, and the reporter Michael Hastings who had his car blown up.

reply to post by jmdewey60


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

There was no program to test fly commercial aircraft remotely. 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.

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.