How To Make A Convincing looking Plane Crash

reply to post by TwelfthStreet



Amazing how the evidence is out there, but no one has come forward and blown the story open. Let me guess, they're afraid for their life?

I've looked into that day for awhile and have never seen one shred of evidence that those flights landed anywhere.

TwelfthStreet
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I don't actually "trust" anyone -- especially those I'm not
very familair with -- but least of all you. ROFL

The smear still working for you re jm?

And, evidently, you've missed the FBI memo sent to local
police departments stating that they can now consider those who question 9/11 to be potential terrorists.

hmmm....?

Are you jmdewey's defense attorney? I am not libeling him in any way, I am telling you exactly what he said and where he said it at. If you have a problem with that, then perhaps you need to read what he has put on his youtube channel.

Here at ATS, we are allowed to post links to sources, and jmdewey is a source of conspiracy theorism. I have every right to question what he says by pointing out what he says and disagree with what he says. What next...am I a paid shill by the government?

Are you afraid of them? Do you really think they are after you now that you don't believe? Wow, talk about wag the dog. Let's see what the memo says...

The line that mentions 9/11 says "Conspiracy theories about WESTERNERS (e.g.) the CIA arranged 9/11 to invade Islamic lands"

That doesn't mean everyone who believes it, it is fully in regard to ISLAMIC MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISTS. You apparently didn't read it all, because it addresses SLEEPER CELLS.

Boy, talk about dancing around words again.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Don't play that one with me, saying I took what you said out of context because I left out parts of it.

You quoted what I wrote on my channel page, then went ahead and said that I said something else, as I noted in my post above.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Maybe you are the one "forgetting".

I do know you wrote it in 2007.

Which is "a few years ago", like I said.

Here you are in 2008 with a poorly drawn graphics video...

Now you are criticizing my artistic abilities?
Even that low quality of a video took a lot of work. Do you have some nicer videos that you would like to show as a comparison?

I have not misquoted you at any time.

Maybe not within the quote brackets. But in your text you word things differently to make me out as saying something else.

WHAAAA, you mean it's an orb?

I didn't say it was an orb. You are presenting things in such a way as to make me say things that I don't. It just so happens that this video is commonly called the "orb" video, and I was making a good version so people can make up their own minds. What I was pointing out is that even though you can't see wings, you can see a distortion of the background right where you would expect for there to be wings.

In 2008 you go back to the planes again...but this time it's missiles and the planes have disintegrated...

Thanks. I really appreciate your highlighting my videos. Maybe I'll get some more hits on them now.

Planes, no planes?

The story is that I am naturally skeptical, so even though I saw that live video feed of a plane crashing into the WTC tower, I needed to confirm it to myself that it was not somehow fake itself. My main proof as far as I am concerned is the fact that what I saw has never surfaced as a recording, available for public consumption. There wouldn't be a reason to fake a video that almost no one was ever going to see.

Remember, these are your videos, your words.

I left everything intact exactly the way I originally put them up as a record of the thought process I was going through.

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

jmdewey, I know how to draw already. In fact I know how to draw in 1 point, 2 point and 3 point perspective. So yes, I could indeed draw it better than you.

And no jmdewey, I posted the link and the direct quote so people can read it for themselves. When are you going to understand, I don't have to change what you say, you already said it, so stop back pedalling. You said it, claim you said and move on.

And jmdewey, you don't even want to know my video editing skills, I am a video editor. I have even written film screenplays, so let's not compare apples to oranges, ok.

And so you are more interested in getting hits than actually providing anything honest? I came into this discussion because you invited me here, you challenged me but you didn't know anything about me, or you have forgotten about me. I addressed your thread from the title, I challenged your words and videos, and now you are back pedalling.

You refused to acknowledge my rebuttals of your claims about how easy it is to make a convincing plane crash. You refused to acknowledge Zaphod's expertise in identifying aircraft. From a video editor to another, you can make anything look like anything, but not the way you say. Sony Vegas can't even do what you claim they were able to do with video editing software, make one video feed from multiple angles and multiple views at the same time, even from cell phones and video cameras people were holding. You can't do that live jmdewey, and then you fall back onto "they were all federal agents" or "federal agents absconded every camera and manufactured pictures and video". You mean to tell me, a federal agent has the capability of taking a camera to edit a video ON the camera itself? What kind of camera could do that in 2001?

That's why everything else you say has no merit. I am merely calling you out on your claims from your own words. And just to prove I didn't take you out of context, I provided the links so others can see.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Let them believe that you are the one who had a special tv with a special signal that only you and Bush's entourage were able to see.

Here you are making misleading statements again about what I said.

It is "special" by being in this part of Florida rather than some other state.
Anyone in that area had a special TV if they had it tuned to the right channel.

reply to post by TwelfthStreet

"LBJ: The Mastermind Behind the Assassination of President Kennedy."

"Available everywhere" may be a clue that it is backed by zionists to get your attention away from the real perpetrators.
Good luck finding a copy of Piper's book showing Mossad as the masterminds.

reply to post by WarminIndy

I came into this discussion because you invited me here, you challenged me but you didn't know anything about me, or you have forgotten about me. I addressed your thread from the title, I challenged your words and videos, and now you are back pedalling.

You were telling me "I don't buy it" when I said on another thread that I saw the plane that hit the south WTC tower.
I invited you to take your objections to a thread where the discussion wouldn't be off topic.

You do repeatedly change what I said in order to make it seem ridiculous. You do it in your summaries of what you quoted earlier by me.

From a video editor to another, you can make anything look like anything, but not the way you say. Sony Vegas can't even do what you claim they were able to do with video editing software, make one video feed from multiple angles and multiple views at the same time, even from cell phones and video cameras people were holding.

I have no idea of what you are talking about.
You seem to be thinking of someone else's theory, not any of mine.
All you are doing is throwing out weird claims and making out that it is actually me throwing them out.

reply to post by Zaphod58

And if they did, simply claim United is bringing a plane back into service, and they wouldn't think twice.

By painting it themselves?
So is the military in the habit of restoring planes for extra cash or something?

I think that the simple explanation would be that evidence was collected and anything too revealing was destroyed, meaning photos that made it plain that it wasn't a United plane.

You would have to keep up a 'plausible deniability' cover story, if you were planning to crash a derelict plane, for the possible eventuality of the existence of this plane being noticed. A generic looking plane would be easier to explain than one that has a sort of 'United' looking paint-job.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

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

Why have there not been any more people from Sarasota saying the same thing you are?

Did federal agents get to them first to shut them up?

Why don't we make an open audition call to Sarasota and ask for anyone else to come forward with this information? Do you think people who also saw what you saw might say something also?

You saw a video of someone panning the sky and you read into it that it was more than what it was. Don't you think just maybe they were adjusting their camera to get a view of the building, that maybe the trees might have been blocking their view? The trees would have been still in bloom at that time.

If they were on the ground and buildings were blocking the view of the burning tower, it makes sense to get a better view. Don't you think maybe that's what they were doing? Or maybe the camera person was inexperienced and in their excitement had the camera looking up, as sometimes happens when people are excited?

Just because there was no audio means nothing. Have you ever had to hook up audio to a camera for reporters? It's not like you just turn on the camera and that little mic is going to get a good voice, that's why reporters have microphones. So just because there was no audio does not mean they were receiving instructions from a radar person telling them where to pan the camera. And how do you know it was supposed to be a reporter?

What you saw was a classic example of the camera operator not being ready to broadcast a reporter while the live feed was on. It happens a lot. It even happens in the studio. Have you ever worked in a studio?

Have you ever watched the news when the anchors in the studio say "we now go live to...." and nothing is there? But you say you don't watch much news, but that's no excuse, because it happens quite often.

You read way too much into it. If you have ever worked in any type of broadcasting, you know that human error occurs. I worked in broadcasting, and even on the radio we had glitches sometimes when we were expecting a caller or the EBS going out, or the transformer overheating or some other thing that happens. But your studio is in your home, you sit at your own desk and broadcast live from blogtalk radio, but I will bet that you have experienced technical problems yourself.

Just sit back for a moment and put yourself into their shoes and then maybe you might feel a little bit of what they were going through that day. If your experience really happened and you saw a live feed to a camera in Battery Park that had no audio or no person, then please don't assume a wildly fantastic story about it being a broadcast for George Bush to see that you inadvertently picked up on your tv.

So it makes me wonder, if the President already knew about it because he masterminded the whole thing, and the CIA pulled all the strings to make it happen, what would be the purpose of them streaming it live so he can see something that crazy like you suggest?

I was in broadcasting on a real radio station in North Carolina on 9/11. I had to go on air that evening to talk about what happened. So are you going to suggest that I am also part of the conspiracy because I was in the media? I worked at WKTE AM 1090 in King, North Carolina. I was heard from Bristol, Virginia to Savannah, Georgia.

You didn't see anything except a camera feed of some skyline, nothing more than that. You bought into the conspiracy theories because it's too simple to accept that even camera operators make mistakes when going live.

reply to post by jmdewey60


How would you know they were military? Its not like they'd be doing it in uniform with military equipment.

I think a better explanation is that if this was a military operation they would cover their bases and not leave a glaring hole, like pictures of an obviously not United plane.

Contrary to opinion the military is not stupid, and using a plane not painted as a United plane is just stupid.

Zaphod58
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

How would you know they were military? Its not like they'd be doing it in uniform with military equipment.

I think a better explanation is that if this was a military operation they would cover their bases and not leave a glaring hole, like pictures of an obviously not United plane.

Contrary to opinion the military is not stupid, and using a plane not painted as a United plane is just stupid.

I can see that one: "Hey let's paint a military plane to make it look like United 175, but make it look like United 175 is a military plane" I wonder, did United 175 look like a military plane when it took off from Boston and over Massachusetts, they painted it in the sky, then took over by remote control, all the while other pilots could see United 175 and the radars at ATC didn't see the switcheroo on radar?

Let's see, United 175 was sitting on the runway looking like it's normal self, with passengers and crew on board, the flight board inside the terminal probably telling people the time it was taking off, but then after the pilot got the all clear to fly, something crazy happened, an half an hour later United 175 was painted in the sky and taken over by remote control and suddenly it sprouted missiles. It then proceeded to NYC while other pilots could see it being painted and sprouting said missiles.

That's what it was and jmdewey figured it out. Yes, that paint was still wet when it hit the tower and we all know how explosive paint can be. But we will never know because the missiles shot so many holes into the South Tower and completely obliterated all evidence that United 175 was painted to look military. All we have are pictures of the plane's before and after.

It was United 175 as it flew out of Boston, but the magical switcheroo happened, it changed to military somewhere over Massachusetts, or it might have been New Jersey, or it might have been Pennsylvania, we don't know.

What is funny is that when all of the other pilots say they saw United 175, not one of them says it looks military, not one of them says it looks like it has missiles, not one of them say it looks like anything else except a commercial plane. Some weren't sure of the company, some weren't sure of the size, but not one of them say it was military.

I am sure if it were military, the first thing they would have remarked about would be why would military be in that air space in the first place.

Military Air Space

The second type of military airspace is called a Military Operations Area. Military Operations Areas (MOAs) were "established for the purpose of separating certain military training activities from IFR traffic." They can be identified on a VFR sectional chart by magenta "comb teeth" outlining the MOA. An MOA is special use airspace of defined vertical and lateral dimensions established outside Class A airspace to separate/segregate certain nonhazardous military activities from IFR traffic in controlled airspace and to identify for VFR traffic where these activities are conducted.

A military plane would not have taken off from Boston Logan. He just can't see how impossible his theory is and provides no source of origin and was witnessed by ATC, the pilot was in contact to take off and other pilots saw it.

reply to post by WarminIndy

It then proceeded to NYC while other pilots could see it being painted and sprouting said missiles.

I never said anything about the plane that crashed having any missiles.

At one point I was theorizing that another plane fired missiles timed to hit the tower 1/10 second after the plane hit. How it would be done exactly is a little difficult to figure out but that is what it looks like from studying the explosion in the available video.

reply to post by jmdewey60


There is no physical way in hell they could have timed it that closely. It's not possible. They'd either hit early, hit the plane before it hit the tower, or hit late.

Not to mention leave a smoke trail that could be seen from a LONG way away.

reply to post by Zaphod58

There is no physical way in hell they could have timed it that closely. It's not possible. They'd either hit early, hit the plane before it hit the tower, or hit late.

Not to mention leave a smoke trail that could be seen from a LONG way away.

Conveniently, there was a big cloud of smoke from the first tower that was trailing off into the general direction that a missile would be coming from.
Here is a short video of one of the closest videos of the second hit. Unfortunately, the camera was moving all over the place. The YouTube user, clauzii, "stabilized" it in the same sort of way as I did the "smoke Float" video (that I linked to earlier on this thread), which if focusing on a point and cropping the fame to keep it centered on that spot. If you watch this video, it seems to show a secondary explosion, slightly off from the initial impact.
You could say that it was the fuel exploding, except that jet fuel doesn't explode. Explosives explode.

Come on and admit it.
It's a lot easier to just get a bunch of religious nuts hell bent on revenge to hijack the planes than it is to put together this convoluted conspiracy.

It didn't take much to get a bunch to go on a suicide mission in a mall in Kenya did it?
And if you've seen some of their skanky women the best they can hope for is 72 virgins in the afterlife.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

It then proceeded to NYC while other pilots could see it being painted and sprouting said missiles.

I never said anything about the plane that crashed having any missiles.

At one point I was theorizing that another plane fired missiles timed to hit the tower 1/10 second after the plane hit. How it would be done exactly is a little difficult to figure out but that is what it looks like from studying the explosion in the available video.

It's like these people are living in a world of a CIA espionage novel. You can't figure it out because it's not real.

You are making the claim that it has to be military with missiles. OK, so then tell us, where did the plane take off from and where were the missiles shot from? You said a "barrage of missiles", so how many planes does a barrage need?

Are two a barrage, three, four, five? What is a barrage?

You seem to be Bipolar in your theories. You aren't consistent, but you continue to twist anything to get to something not real.

I can only go on what you say.

On this thread you have told us that you saw a live video feed from someone on Battery Park sent to Sarasota to the special tv feed.

In 2012 you said

jmdewey60 1 year ago There was a plane, I did see it, live as it happened, by way of a military video feed taken by members of a unit who were doing a "drill" in Battery Park, just south of the World Trade Center towers, coincidentally of what would happen in the event of a hijacked plane being flown into the WTC towers.

In 2009 you said

jmdewey60 4 years ago The explosions are obviously the result of military grade high explosives and nothing to do with a plane crash. If you could somehow use a shotgun to launch an unopened can of beer into a brick wall, the splat sound that the beer made as it ejected out of the ruptured aluminum can would have been the only sound. (outside of the shotgun) Not a huge KABOOM heard miles away. That's a bomb, excuse me! Watch Clauzii's slow motion of tower 1. The big white cloud is HE. The red flame later is the jet.

And

jmdewey60 4 years ago How does what happens to the plane have anything to do with where the missiles come from? The missiles hit after the plane hits. They could have been launched from a plane just far enough out to not be easily spotted, and homed in on the big Boeing plane, but fired late enough to not hit until right after the Boeing hits. Now difficult is that?

These are your comments, I made nothing up.

And it's this last one you are proposing to Zaphod also. So let's go with what you say here and everywhere else.

They "could have been launched" from another plane? Was this plane over land or the ocean? What type of missile was it and why haven't there been missile parts found? Why didn't anyone else see this "barrage of missiles"?

You said four years ago that it was a bomb. A bomb is not a missile. So which is it? Bombs or missiles?

And you can't seem to figure out how explosions work, so everything has to be a conspiracy...

Here's one of a car hitting a gas pump.


I would like for you to notice that the fireball is carried forward by the blast wave. Now imagine this happening to a loaded plane hitting a building where gas lines are used for the restaurant above the impact zone. And also imagine that this plane has jet fuel that is now spewing out, because the jet fuel is in the wings and the wings have been torn. Any spark would ignite the jet fuel.

The ensuing blast wave would then be carried forward pushing the fireball. Is this what happened? Yes, it did happen. It doesn't require bombs or missiles for explosions. The vortex would have also pushed fireballs. But the fireball would have also been carried upward and downward from the energy wave itself. The reason the fireball was initially carried forward, to come out the other side of the building, was from the blast wave.

Head on collision and explosion of cars in Russia.



Here is a video of a bird strike in a 757 jet engine in Manchester Airport


So imagine that the planes with two engines, hits something that then is sucked into the engines and causes them to explode, the explosion rips the gas lines to the restaurant above, the jet fuel (kerosene) is now providing fuel for the fire to burn. The fire from the blast wave is moving forward, which you see initially coming from the opposite side of the building, and moving upward and moving downward, the fire would find material that continues to feed it. Explosions only require two things, fuel and and ignition.

Jet fuel has a low ignition point..
Jet Fuel

For AUTO IGNITION it must reach 410 degrees. That means it can ignite at the low flash point when there is something that ignites it. But for it to ignite automatically, then the temp must be higher. That point is missed by conspiracy theorists.

And everyone knows that when you have a kerosene furnace and the kerosene tank is being filled up, you don't smoke around it. Why? Because even a cigarette is enough for the flash point.

And water is not used to put out a jet fuel fire, and we know the water sprinkler systems were activated in the buildings, that led to moving the fires more rapidly.

You need to take all of these things into consideration before jumping to the conclusions that it was bombs and missiles.

reply to post by jmdewey60


WRONG....JET FUEL DOES EXPLODE....jet fuel is kerosene. It's AUTOMATIC flash point is 410 degrees, but IGNITES at LOW TEMPS.

I don't even have to go post all the links about KEROSENE explosions. JET FUEL is KEROSENE.

Did you even just say that? What world do you live in that kerosene can't explode?

reply to post by jmdewey60


There is no way they could time it that close.

A cruise type missile would be seen for miles and have a huge explosion. A smaller air to air type missile would leave a smoke trail as long as the motor was burning and self destruct not long after burnout.

Again, you see something and immediately jump to a conclusion. Explosives aren't the only causes of explosions.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Did you even just say that? What world do you live in that kerosene can't explode?

You invented your own definition of the word "explode".
An explosion requires an oxidising agent.
Kerosene is straight fuel with no oxidising agent added.
You would have to add that to make it explode.
What kerosene can do is to burn rapidly if heated up enough.

reply to post by WarminIndy

You are making the claim that it has to be military with missiles.

No.
I din't claim that.
I said that is a possible explanation.
It is just as likely that there were devices planted in the building that could be set off.
It is known that new construction was done on the floor that the plane hit.
What I was going by was what looked to me like holes being punched through the smoke from the initial impact of the plane, then subsequent explosions at those same points.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Kerosene can and does explode. Kerosene vapor, which there was plenty of in the fuel tanks, and air, is quite an explosive mix. Quite a few people are killed every year when a kerosene tank, or something kerosene related explodes.