How To Make A Convincing looking Plane Crash

reply to post by WarminIndy

You mean in that one minute you were able to tell exactly where the camera was, from your couch in Sarasota?

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
I said I looked it up later on a program that existed then, (it still does but not accessible to the public) where you could put yourself at any point and see how the surroundings would look like from there. And also Google Earth, which was like that too back then.
I used that tool to identify where any picture or video was taken from.
At that point I was using a mental picture.

If it was so well established, how were people there on the street? Those people ran away when the towers started to fall.

None of them were allowed to cross the street and go into the park. You can see where the camera points into the park and all you see is military vehicles. Most likely you are not as familiar with the geography as I am since I did my own research, so you may not know what you are looking at.
That is something someone can look at to see what was going on at this time and place but it is known otherwise from other sources before this video was released.
People did go into the park when the buildings collapsed but the time that I am concerned about was when the second tower was hit, and not before or afterwards.

The videos you edit are from people sitting on boats, right? So how did none of your contacts take pictures of the military and/or police doing this? Why isn't there one single picture from anyone of this?

Because it never happened. Michael Hezarkhani and Carmen Taylor are the people claiming to have taken the "Battery Park" video with a video camera, and photos with a digital still camera. I did have some conversations via the internet with Carmen Taylor to hear her version of events, and to tell her my version. Her comment on my story was, "weird". My current comment on hers, I just said, "didn't happen". If you look at the comments on the "street talk" video, I said where she is in the video. She is the bleach blond in the long black coat, with her back to the the camera, and the guy she is talking to in the red shirt is Michael Hezarkhani. They were not in the park when the second plane crashed, to take the video or pictures, but they had those images put into their cameras by federal agents.

reply to post by WarminIndy

He knew personally the young man, who fell under the pressure of Islamic fundamentalism, even though his father was a Christian.

Motive is one necessary part of a crime, and there are plenty of people with that, but it also takes opportunity and that is where the false flag facilitators come in.
Someone had to walk him through the airport with some sort of intelligence agency ID with some high level of authority to get the guy through without even a passport.

reply to post by Zaphod58

And there were some well known people on the planes that day, and I've known people that knew others on the planes. They were real people.

The second thing you said before.
Do you still have a way of contacting any of those people who said that they knew someone?
I'm not saying that you do not believe it, or the people you know don't believe it, but it could be an urban legend.
I worked with two different people in two different states who both told me they were in prison with Charles Manson, and another guy who said he was at the ranch when he was arrested for murder.
Anyway, call some people up and see if we can put an end to this idea of made-up people.
This is a theory but one, like I said, based on there not being anyone on the plane, and I could see right into it because the camera operator did not do a good job of pulling back on the zoom when it got really close, to where I could count the rivets on the sheet metal.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

They were not in the park to take the video or pictures but they had those images put into their cameras by federal agents.

Were federal agents just walking around on the street taking every camera from every person? Were they in buildings doing the same thing? Were they on the highway in the car with the two Russian brothers?

How did they even know who would have a camera?

OH, I forgot, they were all federal agents.

Do you really think we are buying all of this when there is too much overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Yes, your theory is weird. You forget fundamental aspects such as witnesses, air traffic control employees who were recorded during the event, news helicopters recording live from NYC, the plethora of reporters from all over the world who would be there anyway, because they are always reporting from Washington DC and NYC.

Tell Zaphod about the depleted uranium rod in your video.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

He knew personally the young man, who fell under the pressure of Islamic fundamentalism, even though his father was a Christian.

Motive is one necessary part of a crime, and there are plenty of people with that, but it also takes opportunity and that is where the false flag facilitators come in.
Someone had to walk him through the airport with some sort of intelligence agency ID with some high level of authority to get the guy through without even a passport.

Shaking my head. You believe anything that spews out of Alex Jones, don't you?

reply to post by WarminIndy

Yes, your theory is weird. You forget fundamental aspects such as witnesses, air traffic control employees who were recorded during the event, news helicopters recording live from NYC . . .

There was a real plane, so there isn't anything to explain.
You are probably thinking of a "no-plane" theory.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Even if you don't believe me, then explain how all of Hollywood is in on it. The producer of the show Frasier was on one of the flights. Or how a school failed to mention that the group of children killed on Flight 77 from their school weren't actually real after 9/11. Or why National Geographic ran an article about their crew killed on Flight 77 if they weren't real. Or that NASA didn't say anything about the former engineer that was killed that day if he was fake.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Yes, your theory is weird. You forget fundamental aspects such as witnesses, air traffic control employees who were recorded during the event, news helicopters recording live from NYC . . .

There was a real plane, so there isn't anything to explain.
You are probably thinking of a "no-plane" theory.

I am thinking that you said United 175 didn't exist, that is was a remote controlled plane. All of your arguments have been that United 175 didn't exist. Just because you say it was a remote control plane means that it could have been anything but United 175. Therefore, "not that plane" means "no plane" because for your theory to work, the "not that plane" is imaginary, therefore, "no plane".

You understand now? You have an imaginary plane that did not exist in place of United 175 trying to convince us this imaginary plane. And if it's imaginary, then it must not be a plane at all, especially when you throw into it all the imaginary shadow agents.

You also said in the title of this thread "see how easy it is to make a video of a plane", implying in the title alone that there were "no planes".

Then you tell us that a random camera was scanning the skies because they were getting a call from some random radar person telling them where to look, all for the purpose of creating a video. That means that the random person was scanning the sky to edit a plane in later. Which means "no plane".

Do you even know the title of this thread that you created and what it means? May I direct your attention to the title again, "How easy it is to create a convincing looking plane crash"...not "how easy it is to take a video of a remote control plane".

For those of us who are literate can only go on what your title is. What would be the purpose of a random camera to take pictures of the sky as though they were looking for a plane, only for that plane to be a remote control one, which then had to be edited later to make it appear as the real United 175? Why all of that?

When you said "there was no United 175" did you mean that United 175 at one time did exist? Or that United 175 was remote controlled or how about this, they set the flight path with the automatic pilot system then jumped out and parachuted while the plane hit? That's one that I never heard before, so you got that one from me in the event that people will someday believe that one. I said it first as sarcasm, ok people.

Here's a really good idea, take stock footage of a building...then take stock footage of an airplane, then edit it to make it look like a real plane crash into a building. That's really in essence what you are saying in your title.

"No United 175" means "no plane" because United 175 was real. Your imaginary plane was not only remote controlled, but had a depleted uranium rod as well that it dropped onto the WTC South Tower.

Here is from your channel on youtube

I started out to easily demonstrate how planes were used on 9/11. The more I look into this, the less inclined I am to think there was. Strange as it may seem, I do not see evedence of large quantities of jet fuel.I do plainly see missiles exploding.

You are of the "no plane" theory.

reply to post by WarminIndy

You are of the "no plane" theory.

What you quoted apparently from my YouTube page is the same thing as in my OP for this thread, that you cannot account for all the damage to the the towers by saying "Jet Fuel".
Jet fuel is basically Kerosene. Kerosene was originally a brand name for a type of fuel oil.
It wouldn't make sense for me to be a no-plane'r.

I start right out saying in the OP,

. . . so there were no planes."
How does that make any sense?

which was me not seeing the logic that too much damage means there were no planes. I was saying that you could have a real plane but throw in some missiles through the initial fire and smoke of the plane hitting.
What I found in my studying the frames from the hit videos is holes being punched through the plane crash "explosion", and then "real" explosions that fuel oil can not do.
Just listening to the sound, it isn't a "Boom", its a "ba-Boom", meaning a small "boom" followed in a fraction of a second, by a big "Boom".

Therefore, "not that plane" means "no plane" because for your theory to work, the "not that plane" is imaginary, therefore, "no plane".

That is some really weird substitute for logic. That because "my" plane is "imaginary" in your estimation, then I somehow believe there wasn't any plane at all. Hmm.

You also said in the title of this thread "see how easy it is to make a video of a plane", implying in the title alone that there were "no planes".

You "make a video of a plane" by flying a plane while videoing it. Duh.

Then you tell us that a random camera was scanning the skies because they were getting a call from some random radar person telling them where to look, all for the purpose of creating a video. That means that the random person was scanning the sky to edit a plane in later. Which means "no plane".

There was no "later". What I was describing was a live video feed that was never later aired. You seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem and understanding simple concepts.
What I was talking about in the early posts on this thread two years ago is a way of seeing the 911 media event in a "big picture" sort of way, where the whole thing is like a big video.

Do you even know the title of this thread that you created and what it means?

A "plane crash", before 911, would normally make someone think, "Oops, someone just messed up somehow and now their plane is wrecked".
My point was that you could manufacture an event to make it look like that, without it really being that.

"No United 175" means "no plane" because United 175 was real.

It means that there was not a plane taking off from Boston airport as a scheduled flight called "175". Something else happened, I believe, either there was a plane that got that designation for air control purposes to get a blip on the screen, or there was one just put there by other means, such as part of the simulation being run that day as a hijacking drill.
What I am going with is research other 911 researchers found, that before the crash, there was not a flight called "175" scheduled. So really what happened was that there was a "simulated" flight designated as 175 in the hijacking simulation that "went live", meaning it started out as a simulation that looked real on the air traffic control screen, that all of a sudden became a real plane that crashed into a building. Then they retroactively dummied up a flight to explain what had already happened.

reply to post by Zaphod58

The producer of the show Frasier was on one of the flights.

Right, as you say, "one" of the flights.
I have concentrated on the story connected to the second crash so didn't run into this person before.
So, since you brought it up, I Googled what you wrote about this person to see what the story was.
David Angell is the name, and Wikipedia says,

Angell and his wife Lynn both died aboard American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to hit the World Trade Center, during the September 11 attacks.
en.wikipedia.org...

There are links at the bottom of the page and one is to an article in hollywood.com. I found this part interesting,

"What few know is that he was also a man of great faith, a quality that allowed him to navigate the shoals of the entertainment industry with unusual grace and level-headedness.
David Angell

My guess is that his "faith" was Zionism, and he was doing his part for Israel, by "sacrificing" himself to save the Jewish state.
Like I have been saying, my focus is on the plane that I saw. For all I know, Flight 11 could have been "real" since it was a straight shot into the north tower that a living person could conceivably be trusted to pull off without too much skill.

One of the things that I bring up when I am talking to someone about 911, is this important thing that seems to have been conveniently forgotten, maybe to not make such an obvious connection between Israel and 911, which is that Saddam Hussein was launching Scud missiles into Israel.

Damage from an Iraqi scud missile that hit Ramat Gan during the first Gulf War.
en.wikipedia.org...

If you think about that now, it is easy to see the cause and effect between that and what history now remembers, which is the most complete destruction of a country in the history of the world, meaning what the US and Israel did to Iraq.

You have to think back to remember, it was during the senior Bush presidency that this was going on, after the US invaded Iraq over the earlier invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. As a sort of retaliation Saddam was launching missiles into the Israeli heartland, Tel Aviv.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Wow. So you ASSUME he's a Zionist and was willing to kill himself for them. Wow. And you wonder why I say you're making illogical jumps to conclusions. Did you even bother to TRY to find out, or did you say "Hollywood. Faith. He's a Zionist, which means he was willing to die for them!"

Hmm, his brother is a Bishop of the Roman Catholic church. What, he skipped the Zionism indoctrination? Or are the Zionists infiltrating the church with him.

Considering that he and his wife were "devoted to life" I have a hard time believing that he'd be willing to die to drag the US into a war for Zionists.

But didn't you say that the passengers weren't real? So what, he allowed himself and his wife to be executed to make it look like they were on the plane that day?

Zaphod58
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Wow. So you ASSUME he's a Zionist and was willing to kill himself for them. Wow. And you wonder why I say you're making illogical jumps to conclusions. Did you even bother to TRY to find out, or did you say "Hollywood. Faith. He's a Zionist, which means he was willing to die for them!"

Hmm, his brother is a Bishop of the Roman Catholic church. What, he skipped the Zionism indoctrination? Or are the Zionists infiltrating the church with him.

Considering that he and his wife were "devoted to life" I have a hard time believing that he'd be willing to die to drag the US into a war for Zionists.

But didn't you say that the passengers weren't real? So what, he allowed himself and his wife to be executed to make it look like they were on the plane that day?

edit on 9/22/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

I don't think even he knows what he believes. He has led people to embrace the "no planes" theory by dancing around it and trying to play with words. He borrows from the "no planers" to construct the "remote control planes" and then on his own youtube channel says he believes it to be missiles instead. That's a "no plane" theory.

I quoted his own words on his own channel and he still disputes me over what he declared. He can't have it both ways. Either he holds to the missiles theory or he holds to actual planes were there. It can't be both ways. Then he makes a thread with the title indicating his view that the official "video" was contrived.

He can't seem to make the logical conclusions about the multiple views and angles, so he dismisses them all by saying they were either manufactured by the media or federal agents in cahoots with the witnesses. The ones he can't pass off, he dismisses them completely.

He has shown us no evidence to support his theory other than "I was watching a special feed on my special tv that received a signal from the Sarasota news station tower". He doesn't even know the channel he was watching it on, like it was some kind of CCTV feed.

He tells us a detailed story about being awakened to see what was happening, then his girlfriend (rest in peace) making him something to eat. He even tells us that she was nervously changing the channels before resting on that one. But he doesn't know what channel because he was not fully awake yet and wasn't paying attention to the channel logo.

The details of his actions show us that he didn't know and didn't care because he shows no emotion in himself, only his girlfriend. Then he says it took two years to process the information so then he looked at some program like Google Earth and then Google Earth, that's how he knew where the camera was at, two years later. And then he tells us he interviewed the lady who took pictures from Battery Park and she told him that federal agents had absconded her camera and when they gave it back to her, the images had been put on there. But then she goes ahead and posts the pictures, of which she said federal agents manipulated. She uploaded the pictures of the plane crash.....after knowing it was manipulated???

So now he is trying to tell us that federal agents absconded EVERY video camera out there and for them to do this, then EVERY person who filmed this was a federal agent. Why would federal agents abscond videos from other federal agents, if they were all in on it?

But the federal agents must have absconded the video from the Sarasota news station, because it isn't available anymore. Why would federal agents remove the video if the Sarasota news station were in on it? The Sarasota news station could have just broadcast the "fake" video instead of connecting to someone "live" in Battery Park if it were meant only for the President to see...if the President were in on it???

Then he gets to that conclusion because the President was in Sarasota. Well now, the President must be there for this to happen? You mean that he couldn't be in Washington DC for all of this to happen? I mean he could have just been in the Oval Office and pretended from there, but noooo, he was in Sarasota, at an elementary school listening to them read, just to pretend from there? Why at a school?

He keeps dancing around his own words in his youtube channel and on here and at this point, I am sure he doesn't know what he really believes. He keeps promoting theories that have so many holes and is desperately trying to patch them, with illogical material.

At least he hasn't told us there were holograms.

jmdewey60
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

en.wikipedia.org...

If you think about that now, it is easy to see the cause and effect between that and what history now remembers, which is the most complete destruction of a country in the history of the world, meaning what the US and Israel did to Iraq.

You have to think back to remember, it was during the senior Bush presidency that this was going on, after the US invaded Iraq over the earlier invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. As a sort of retaliation Saddam was launching missiles into the Israeli heartland, Tel Aviv.

edit on 22-9-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

And we completely destroyed Iraq? You mean the country that waged war with Iran in the 1980s? You mean the same leader that used mustard gas against Khurds? Oh snap, we keep forgetting about the Khurds.

But a few Khurds, what's the big deal?

Nooo, it has to be Zionists. And did you know that, Biblical scholar that you are, Saddam Hussein called himself the resurrection of Nebuchadnezzar and built his palaces to reconstruct Nebuchadnezzar? What is a fundamental idea in that? A man who has declared allegiance to Islam, also promotes himself as the resurrection of a polytheistic king....and the guy wasn't nuts?

But nooo, it has to be Zionists.

All of this is a massive Zionist conspiracy, forget about the mustard gas against Khurds. Forget about his sons raping young girls. Forget about the Invasion of Kuwait, that the Kuwaiti government asked for our help. Forget about the very first reports from the UN inspector of finding weapons of mass destruction, then that inspector was fired the day after and replaced with another one who then told us there were none. BTW, all the inspectors said the weapons were taken to Syria. So another leg yank and play on words..."no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" doesn't mean there were never any, it means they were removed. But what about the Khurds? Hmm, they were killed by chemical weapons IN and FROM IRAQ.

Mustard Gas Attack on Khurds

Time line this...

1639 Treaty of Zuhab
1937 Saabad Pact
1955 Baghdad Pact
1957 Overthrow of Hashemites
1968 Coup by the Ba'ath Party
1969 Abrogation of the Saabad Pact
1975 Algiers Accords
1979 Iran Revolution
1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War
1988 Iraq kills Khurds with chemicals and weapons of mass destruction
1989 the WTC parking garage is bombed by terrorists
1991 The War with Iraq over Kuwait
1992-1995 War in Bosnia
2000 USS Cole bombed
2001 The attacks on 9/11

All of these conflicts were over IRAQIS wanting to control oil and invaded IRAN many times for this oil. Then you want us to think the Zionists are behind it? It's been going on 400 years with Iraq being the aggressor at every turn.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Hmm, his brother is a Bishop of the Roman Catholic church. What, he skipped the Zionism indoctrination? Or are the Zionists infiltrating the church with him.

You seem to have gotten that from Wikipedia, which is manipulated constantly by zionists and you should notice how it says "citation needed". The link goes to a paid advertisement.

But didn't you say that the passengers weren't real?

I was talking about flight 175. You are bringing up someone from flight 11.

Considering that he and his wife were "devoted to life" I have a hard time believing that he'd be willing to die to drag the US into a war for Zionists.

His "sacrifice" may have been to go along with all those Israeli agents who got deported for spying on the US.
I also found the mention that he had worked for the Pentagon interesting and how there seems to be a frequent connection between the passengers and the military or military contractors.

reply to post by jmdewey60


So now you know my sources too huh. If you bother doing even any kind of research, which you claim to do, there are a dozen articles that are NOT Wiki that name him bishop, including the official obituary.

Oh, so now only 175 was faked but the others were real?

reply to post by WarminIndy

All of this is a massive Zionist conspiracy, forget about the mustard gas against Khurds.

That's my personal opinion.
The poison gas was from the US to use against Iran, who the Zionist Usurper Regime doesn't like.

BTW, all the inspectors said the weapons were taken to Syria.

Just rumours. en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Zaphod58

Oh, so now only 175 was faked but the others were real?

I haven't formulated much of an opinion, keeping focused on the flight that I did see, which I have researched.
I apparently am unique in that I had this experience, and figured out that it was in fact unusual, and am talking about it on the internet, so there are millions of people out there who have no recollection of the crash when it happened, who can invest their time in researching the Pentagon and Shanksville and Flight 11.

I actually believe that I am risking my life by talking about this on a forum, so don't chastise me over trivia.
I believe in the truth, just as much as the zionists believe in their idolatry.

reply to post by jmdewey60


That's interesting that you would say to Zaphod that Wikipedia is manipulated by Zionists, and yet how many times have I seen you cite Wikipedia?

And here is the link....
jmdewey60 on youtube

And here is your quote

I started out to easily demonstrate how planes were used on 9/11. The more I look into this, the less inclined I am to think there was. Strange as it may seem, I do not see evedence of large quantities of jet fuel.I do plainly see missiles exploding.

You started out to demonstrate how PLANES were used. Used by whom? What kind of planes? You don't say here "remote control planes" you say "PLANES". Then you say "the less inclined I am to think there was" Do you mean NO PLANES were used, NO REAL PLANES were used, NO COMMERCIAL PLANES were used?

You are less inclined to believe PLANES. But you do believe MISSILES. You don't see evidence of JET FUEL.

If you do believe planes were used, then go back and retract your statement, then explain to us what you mean by "The more I look into this, the less inclined I am to think there was"

Did these planes launch missiles then fly away? And these missiles had depleted uranium rods?

But that was seven years ago, here you are on a broadcast on 2011

If you believe it was real planes, then retract your statement. What has happened is that people who wanted to believe in conspiracy theories read your first statement and your video and was led by you to think there were no planes. If you were wrong, you need to fix it.

This is what you have got to understand jmdewey, you cannot be irresponsible for leading people the wrong way, everything you imply regarding conspiracy theories will be taken at face value by gullible people. That means that no matter how outrageous it is, no matter how illogical it sounds, not matter how ridiculous, you have convinced gullible people when you first say "I am less inclined to believe planes were used" then you turn around, without retraction to say there were planes, just not the ones we thought.

Can you see our concern with your stories, jmdewey? People believe you and is that the way that you, as a Christian, should do things? I am allowed by the ATS T&C to use links and external quotes to make my argument, and I used yours. If you are a reliable source, then you should have no problems with me using you as the source.

I gave the readers two links to your theories and used your quote. So you have the choice now, either retract your statement about not believing there were planes, or keep leading people into believing the wrong thing.

Is that a fair thing? Then we can go on to the next problems and issues.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Then they're the most incompetent assassins in history. People have been talking about this for as long as I've been on the boards and the only ones gone are the ones banned by the staff.

jmdewey60
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

Oh, so now only 175 was faked but the others were real?

I haven't formulated much of an opinion, keeping focused on the flight that I did see, which I have researched.
I apparently am unique in that I had this experience, and figured out that it was in fact unusual, and am talking about it on the internet, so there are millions of people out there who have no recollection of the crash when it happened, who can invest their time in researching the Pentagon and Shanksville and Flight 11.

I actually believe that I am risking my life by talking about this on a forum, so don't chastise me over trivia.
I believe in the truth, just as much as the zionists believe in their idolatry.

edit on 22-9-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Risking your life from whom? Do you really believe the government is out to get you because you "Exposed" them? Do you live in constant paranoia? So when jmdewey, did you become a threat? Were you a threat in 2007 or 2011? Why has it taken so long to catch you jmdewey when all they have to do is contact youtube, get your i.p. address and then track you down?

I think the mere fact that you have been spewing 9/11 conspiracy theories for so long kind of proves you are in no danger from them.