How To Make A Convincing looking Plane Crash

Zaphod58
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.

And he feels like he is at risk for saying this here...and yet has his own blogtalk radio show..hmmm, interesting. Methinks he is setting himself up to become famous among conspiracy theorists. He says "oh, I am at risk for my life"...that makes it sound all the more real to his believers.

In danger, at risk, and yet has a youtube channel and blogtalk radio show. Well, his freedom of speech is being respected, but at the same time, he's at risk. Oh my, it's almost like jmdewey wants to be Anonymous. Maybe jmdewey is in Anonymous, we don't know. But he's risking his life on ATS, youtube and blogtalk radio..and just keeps on putting himself out there for them to see him.

Yeah, that's what you do, you become a "target" then make yourself visible....

Zaphod58
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?

Didn't he say earlier that United could not be United because it was gray? Well, here I am looking at a picture of United 175, and it's gray. Wait, I thought he said it had to be military because it's gray.

Well he needs to explain this color....


And this color


And what all this is....


And on top of that he needs to explain what all this is...


And this


United 175 taking off from Boston, the pilot in chatter with air traffic control. So how again does jmdewey think this is military?

reply to post by WarminIndy

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

You are misquoting me again by leaving "large quantities of" out of the sentence, changing its meaning.

Also this was something I wrote a few years ago and notice I do not say that I had come to any conclusion.

reply to post by WarminIndy

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.

The reason why I am "spewing 9/11 conspiracy theories" right now is because you brought up a whole long list of theories that you were trying to pin on me.

Usually I just tell what I saw, and that is what is "dangerous" to the perpetrators, because I am not pushing a theory, I am presenting a first hand experience that can only be explained by there being a foreknowledge of the second plane crash that day.

reply to post by WarminIndy

In danger, at risk, and yet has a youtube channel and blogtalk radio show.

I made the decision to accept the risk.
Jesus said fear not those who can kill your body but who can kill your soul in Hell.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Wait, I thought he said it had to be military because it's gray.

As the plane was passing the camera, it was going into a steep banking maneuver, where when it was starting to go away, I was looking at the plane with its belly point towards the camera, which was grey, and not blue.
The grey part of the United color scheme had the grey on top.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Agree that 9/11 was a complete hoax, including the
planes.
Nice to see the thread resurrected in response to the
bullying of those who want to shut down the "no planes"
discussion.

What we're seeing today is an FBI effort to suggest that
anyone questioning the official version of 9/11 is a
terrorist. That followed Obama's jumping up and in very
quickly after the election to defend the official story from
those giving reasonable and sane challenge to this hoax.
People who think for themselves are obviously a danger to
those who rule by corrupting government and operating in
lawlessness.

Let's also keep in mind that cover-ups are intended to deal
with the fall out -- there's still no such thing as a perfect crime.

All of these events -- assassinations, false flag operations -- are followed by questionable deaths.

One way or another, planes have been brought down, made to crash. The Dorthy Hunt plane crash is but one
earlier example compliments of the Nixon/Watergate
administration.

We've just had confirmation again from Clarke that all
of the intelligence services -- including ours -- quite
certainly have means of remote control over airplanes.
That's long been known.

Cancer anyone?
That's been suspected since the 1960's and confirmed.

Heart attacks?

It's 2013, and it's a hard road to travel if you want to try
to continue to claim that four commercial jetliners were
simultaneously hijacked from our airports.

And, it's now 12 years later and not once in that time has
anyone reported that NORAD took another day off -- like, you know, that coincidental day they went AWOL ... 9/11.
Nor had NORAD been missing from our skies any other day
before 9/11. Cheney was in charge of NORAD on 9/11.

And that's why it had to be amateurs accused of 9/11 -
amateurs who just happened to get lucky on that day
finding that Cheney had left the US totally unprotected?
If Americans had been told that the Russians did 9/11,
they'd still be ROFL.

It's also quite clear that at least one flight was not
scheduled to fly that day. And that one or two of the
other flights allegedly "hijacked" actually landed
elsewhere, safely, with passengers and crew.
Additionally, we have reports of one or two of these
allegedly "crashed" planes still operating in service.

Plus, anyone arguing for "missiles" attached to "planes"
is also arguing that 9/11 was a hoax.

As for deaths, other than firefighters and rescue crews,
no one can say how many died on 9/11.
Except it also seems that it is likely that the building was
closed by 7:30 that morning with no access permitted.


What difference how many may be involved in a conspiracy?
What the numbers add up to in the end is participants having a personal/common interest in the outcome, which
means those interests will be protected.

We see that the RW coup on JFK had a long list of
participants -- higher-ups in government -- but that's
how TPB control government and corrupt it.
They all benefited in some way and this has long been
true throughout the US government's long history of
violence and lawlessness.

And, again, the coup on JFK had a very active cover-up
which seems to continue on even still today.

The most obvious explanation for the hoax of 9/11 is that
one or more planes were flown in the area of the WTC
that morning and over the towers as explosives inside the
building were set off. We have many, many reports of
high level construction activity going on for months within
the building -- and a "shut down" of security the weekend
before 9/11 while people who looked like construction workers came and went. Plus many reports of numerous
fire drills which forced WTC employees out into the street.

We also have the strange coincidence of a French film crew being present in the streets nearby just in time to
catch the first plane hitting the WTC. That film is intended to supply evidence of a plane which didn't exist.
That's why the video exists.

And, of course, we have even more evidence that there
was "no plane" at the Pentagon. A highly reliable film
crew had been sent to the Pentagon to watch for an
attack. They were watching very closely and constantly
as they were assigned to do for CNN, and very clearly
reported that "NO PLANE" hit the Pentagon. Even more
damaging to the official story, they also filmed the
scene and showed quite clearly that there was no debris
outside the Pentagon, except that which could be carried
by hand.

Further, we have a report from a soldier who had been
sitting on the other side of the wall from the alleged
impact. That soldier saw "NO PLANE" enter nor did she
see any plane or debris from a plane within the walls of
the Pentagon. That soldier and her son exited the
Pentagon walking out of that 15' round hole in the wall
which was most likely made by a bunker buster.
That soldier has also sued the Pentagon because they
did not alert their employees to evacuate the building
given warnings that a hijacked plane was in the vicinity,
headed towards the Pentagon. And that is confirmed
by Mineta's filmed testimony. See link below.



and ...
What is this actually supposed to mean...?

QUOTE --
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.
UNQUOTE

The evening of 9/11?
These "brothers" have no actual knowledge of what may
or may not have happened the morning of 9/11.

One of the military reports which did leak out was a tape
of some of the servicemen involved in one of the many training programs set up on 9/11 ... and as he watched
his radar screen and was listening to reports of allegedly
real hijackings of planes, he immediately comments ...
"Are we really supposed to believe this is coincidence?"

The only way the RW can rise is via political violence and we've had more than 50 years of it. It's probably been
going on one way or another since the beginning of the
nation, but certainly on 11/22/63, a RW coup took not
only our president but our people's government.

And it's taken more than that singular violent act to keep
control over the nation. The WTC towers were scheduled to come down at great expense for the owners due to absestos -- scaffolding was to be built and the towers were to be brought down piece by piece just as they had been put up -- and demolition was NOT to be permitted.

Financial interests aligned with PNAC interests in a new
"Pearl Harbor" it seems.

And certainly there was a huge financial killing that day
traceable to the CIA.

In the end, we also have to return to the discussion of
media involvement in 9/11. Dan Rather and at least
one other observer that morning suggested it was
demolition of the WTC. Not all were involved, naturally.
It would only take a few inside -- and quite a few outside.







Secretary Mineta Confirms Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11
extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress.com...


set up

reply to post by TwelfthStreet

And, again, the coup on JFK had a very active cover-up
which seems to continue on even still today.

That is an interesting question, if you think about most of the participants being dead by now.
Well, one is still "alive", if you accept the premise of Michael Collins Piper's book, Final Judgment, which implicates Israel doing it because JFK was preventing them from acquiring nuclear weapons.

What do you mean by "RW"? Reptilians?

reply to post by jmdewey60


And yet you seem to be the only one that saw a grey belly.

Answer me this then. If, as you claim, the military was in on this either using a military plane or a decommissioned plane, why couldn't they paint it correctly? They seem to have thought of everything else. What, they said "even though we're crashing this one second no one will have any cameras there, so they won't notice"? Wouldn't it make so much more sense to cover all their bases and paint it as a United plane? Or use a United plane?

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

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

You are misquoting me again by leaving "large quantities of" out of the sentence, changing its meaning.

Also this was something I wrote a few years ago and notice I do not say that I had come to any conclusion.

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

Nope, I put the entire quote there. It is in the cloud quote taken directly from your channel. I do know you wrote it in 2007. Since then you have not retracted that statement from that video. If you have reached a different conclusion, then you probably need to remove that video because there are people who would be using your previous conclusion.

And yes, I listened to your entire audio from your video from 2011. I gave the link for that video. Since you have been on this thread, we have seen every facet of your theory. I gave the link to your quote so people would see that I have not misquoted you nor have I taken what you have said out of context.

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

So what's going to change when people click on the link to your channel? They are going to see what you said, not what I said.

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

Uploaded on Jun 1, 2008 For some reason the gov was determined to take down the towers, in order to blame it on "terrorists". They had to have a devastating show for TV to get the public to accept that the towers fell because of plane crashes. In order to pull it off they had to use a lot of missiles. Not just for the damage, but to make it look convincing. This is a very simple explanation of what I can see that is very plain to anyone who spends literally hundreds of hours watching these videos and doing the proper research to understand what they are looking at.

And the link to the page...
jmdewey bombing building drawing

With the video



I have not misquoted you at any time. These are your words. You really need to keep up with your videos, there's no consistency in your theories.

So how many missiles did it take jmdewey?

Or were there orbs....

When you watch it as a video, like here, there is an affect where there seems to be points projecting out to the side of the orb interacting with the background, which makes you feel there are wings but just not showing up plainly. Looking closely at the individual frames shows nothing that would identify it as a plane.

WHAAAA, you mean it's an orb? You mean that the frames show that nothing identifies it as a PLANE? jmdewey, how can I be taking anything out context, I am directly quoting YOU.

jmdewey orb video



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

Uploaded on May 9, 2008 Check this out for yourself.I made a study of the Vortices created by the planes that hit the WTC. I was trying to figure out if real planes were involved. Yes....but....there were missiles used. The planes were destroyed on impact.The three missiles I mention, create the affect of plane parts flying out of the building. One of them bounces off the side of the building and explodes within 30 ft.

Barrage of missiles


Now tell me, from orbs, to military, to remote control, what theory are you holding to? Planes, no planes?

I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF REAL PLANES WERE USED...your words. YES, BUT, the planes were destroyed...but what about the ORB jmdewey? Remember, these are your videos, your words.

reply to post by TwelfthStreet


And you have proof of these claims right? ATC recordings of them landing? Pictures of them on the ground? Pictures of them in service after that day?

Or just people making the claims that can't back them up.

reply to post by jmdewey60


The question re media involvement on 9/11 also has to be addressed --

For those not aware, I'd suggest they read something about the CIA's "Operation Mockingbird" which was designed by Cord Meyer at the end of WWII and eventually run by Dulles' newly founded CIA.
Wiki's report on it is rather good, including the information that it was Phil Graham of the Washington Post who actively recruited journalists.
Americans had no hint of this until Carl Bernstein began to write of it in 1970's in "Rolling Stone" -- "CIA and Media."
Originally it was designed to control info on Roswell, UFO's,
mainly by ridicule, but it was also needed obviously to help with the cover up of the coup on JFK.

Most of us know that one commonly expressed opinion of
our press is that it is controlled by the RW. More and more
citizens have totally tuned out. Many will tell you of the lies and distortions of news -- and an absence of news -- by our press. Yet, when it comes to 9/11, there is a hesitancy still to suggest that even a few of them would lie by means of inserting false video into a news report.

The morning of 9/11, Dan Rather and at least one other anchor immediately stated the fall of the WTC towers
looked like "DEMOLITION." And that's what it looked like
to everyone else.

Ironically, they also had death by video because one video
showed the "nose of the allegedly hijacked plane coming out of the other side of the building."
How did that happen? Someone miscalculated in inserting
the video into the picture of the WTC towers.

That was the "Coke" bottle rolling out into the scene of
the alleged moon landing.

Just a little reverse ridicule --



.

reply to post by Zaphod58

. . . or a decommissioned plane, why couldn't they paint it correctly?

That would be a bust, if someone saw a plane like that on an Air Force base.

And someone did see what they called a military plane in a 911 home video that was on YouTube a few years ago.
She probably thought so because of the way it was painted.

reply to post by TwelfthStreet


Before you go on trusting jmdewey, may I just direct your attention to his inconsistencies in his videos on his youtube channels. The links are there for you to look at.

See jmdewey, this is the person who believes you. Good job, now let them argue with you about holograms and missiles and orbs and remote control and planes or no planes....

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.

Let them believe that you are in danger for saying these things on a forum like this with countless people like you discussing it.

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.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Mojave, Roswell, Goodyear just to name three places where working on a civilian plane wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. You don't have to go anywhere near an air force base to do it. There are plenty of locations where they could work and no one would even look twice at them, no matter what they were doing. And if they did, simply claim United is bringing a plane back into service, and they wouldn't think twice.

There was also the claim that 175 was a military plane because people saw a grey plane with no windows. It turned out that they were over a mile away. I have posted pictures in the past that show that in high definition, close to the runway the windows are hard to see.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Hi jm --
Having a bit of a problem in adjusting to the black website
and finding "edit" of post -- and/or not seeing a copy of your post -- however ....

You did refer to a book I'm not familiar with re JFK coup.
But, I think one of the best newer books is by Phillip F.
Nelson called, "LBJ: The Mastermind Behind the Assassination of President Kennedy." I think it's in just
about every library. And at Barnes & Noble where you
can browse it.
It's the clearest charge vs LBJ since Barr McClellan's,
"Blood, Power, Money." And, of course, given the original
evidence and motivation.
It's not entirely new -- much of it involves reporting info
from other books and other investigators but it does add
some new details which are interesting -- and basing the
book in this way makes it more solid, imo, reconfirming
the info that has already been discovered and which has
held up over a long period of time.

You asked about "RW" ... that's simply rightwing -- or
elites -- TPB (the powers that be)

Reptillians -- eh, no -- though I'm an "Ancient Alien" fan
and have always thought that UFO's and alien visitation
are probably the higher secrets controlled by CIA, etal.

Information is power -- and keeping that info secret
creates power for those who hold it.

LBJ, in fact, seemed even in 1958 to be deeply concerned
with NASA and getting to the moon -- which he described as "the highest hill" in what seemed to be military terms.
Further describing the ability then to control weather, etal.

We also see that Hitler and Nazis seemed to think that they had links to higher knowledge, perhaps given to them by aliens, perhaps in back-engineering of a spaceship captured by them?

reply to post by Zaphod58


Yes -- this is old news -- and there are records of these
landings and of passengers and crews being disembarked
safely.

And, as I recall it, somewhere on internet a passenger takes a picture of a flight also waiting to take off bearing
the ID of one of the planes which allegedly "crashed."

On the other hand, there is no proof of the official story.
Everywhere, it is put in question.

And same with flight not scheduled for 9/11 --
it is confirmed by official records of that day, not only
based in the airline's information.

Rather difficult to prove that there were planes flown
into either the WTC or the Pentagon when there is no
physical proof of it, anywhere. In fact, all evidence is
to the contrary.

Debris? --
Debris seems to be easily put down and picked up --
moved in or moved out -- from Shanksville to the
pics near the WTC. A truckload or more -- no problem.

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....?

reply to post by TwelfthStreet


OOOh you almost got a point there. Dan Rather didn't IMMEDIATELY say it...he was not reporting that morning. Bryant Gumble reported it. Here is from CBS channel 9, Washington DC.



CBS FIRST REPORTS that a plane hit the building. They say IMMEDIATELY they don't know yet what it is. The witness can't explain exactly what he saw.

There is nothing here to indicate that the media was leading us into anything, because they DON'T KNOW yet at that point. CBS obviously missed the memo that it was part of the conspiracy. And obviously these people didn't get that memo either, because they don't know yet what it was. The lady on the phone says "another plane" to which Bryant Gumble has to ask her if that's what she saw. The in-studio at CBS had NO idea what happened at first.

Here is the BBC FIRST REPORT...



The BBC didn't get the memo either, because all the anchors are speculating. The witnesses didn't say they knew what exactly what happened.

ABC doesn't even know what happened at first...

The only thing they know is that a "plane hit the building". They are trying not to suggest that it's terror related, in fact Diane Sawyer seems very relaxed because she doesn't know yet.