Is San Fran Asiana Flight 214 Another MSM Hoax?

[sigma6]

San Fran Flight 214.................Another Hoax
uQj1rS5Zu08

one set of photos show plane in field of dirt – NO grass,
Another photo shows people casually coming out of plane with luggage,
walking amongst grassy field...

Plane looks like a Hollywood movie prop,
billowing smoke is always behind the plane.
(or far away shots)

It is known that “crisis” actors were in the vicinity the SAME day
as Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombing. “Training drills” were also
publicly acknowledged on 9/11 and 7/7, that they were training
for "exactly" the event that allegedly happened. This looks like another
“training drill” taken at a completely different time and place.

The crash landing photo: the three “plumes” are solid black (cgi) filled in.
Plane could never have crashed in the manner described (flipping 180 degrees)
but still came to a stop in the same direction? with almost no damage to
the wings? and almost everyone survived?

Lots of discrepancies,

Motivation for this is still not completely understood.

TOTALLY FAKED

[grannyfranny100]

Suggest listening to Joel Skousen http://www.talkshoe.com/resources/talkshoe/images/swf/lastEpisodePlayer.swf?fileUrl=http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/ekorw2wzs4/rense.20130709.3of3.mp3 starts at approximately12:00 concerning the lack of hands on training by Korean pilots who are good at memorizing but lack experience without autopilot.

I wouldn't dismiss it as a MSN hoax but definitely something that will not be covered by lamestream media.

[marielle]

Without inside knowledge, I don't know what to believe. However I do *KNOW* that the news media will blatantly make sh*t up just to fill in the blanks and create a story that looks good. If someone comes along later and analyzes all the news articles and clips, they will see obvious discrepancies.

[sigma6]

retract, misread

all the photos taken together are quite suspect, but given that the rooftop of the plane is blown off in the "stagey" after photos, that couldn't have possibly happened while the people were in the plane. Another HUGE logistical impossibility.

It does look very much like a movie set piece... let's face it the people they are hiring to do these jobs aren't exactly coming off Steven Spielberg or George Lucas's top of line Rolodex of special effect artists.

They have the basic idea, but anyone who likes analyzing their movies can see that they have a certain "look" to them... "stagey"

[Sidney]

Can't believe everything you read, here or on tv. Keep asking questions.

[Knowrainknowrainbows!]

The first time I saw the image of the plane after reading how it had flipped upside down I wondered HOW it could have flipped back over and especially the wings show no significant damage or marks? Then again, maybe it was a very "clean bounce" that uprighted it ... dunno ... :confused:

KRKR

[indigopete]

Plane looks like a Hollywood movie prop,
billowing smoke is always behind the plane.
(or far away shots)

LoL ! I think you've been taken for bit of a "ride" here (no pun intended).

This video is a spoof of all the Sandy Hook - Boston Bomb hoax videos that went viral. Good luck to the guy though - if it gets anywhere near the number of hits as the first Sandy Hook one did then job will be done and he'll be in the money big time.

[Hip Hipnotist]

"Motivation for this is still not completely understood."

That's because there is none.

Gun control? Nah. Much better false flags for that.
Martial law? Nah. Much better flase flags for that.
( Insert you favorite false flag here )

Someone has way too much time on their hands.

The plane crashed.

Next case.

[sirdipswitch]

retract, misread

all the photos taken together are quite suspect, but given that the rooftop of the plane is blown off in the "stagey" after photos, that couldn't have possibly happened while the people were in the plane. Another HUGE logistical impossibility.

It does look very much like a movie set piece... let's face it the people they are hiring to do these jobs aren't exactly coming off Steven Spielberg or George Lucas's top of line Rolodex of special effect artists.

They have the basic idea, but anyone who likes analyzing their movies can see that they have a certain "look" to them... "stagey"



I fully agree, sigma6, with you and the video you posted. I was thinking the very same things, when the accident first aired. When i saw the plane, I couldn't believe when they said all the passengers got out safely. I'm like, HUH!! It all looked staged.

And now my computer is giving me fits and does not want to work, on this thread. Works fine on other threads but not this one. It keeps jamming on me.

Very strange..

I did not believe the original news casts. They had that fake look to them......

[sigma6]

"Motivation for this is still not completely understood."

That's because there is none.

Gun control? Nah. Much better false flags for that.
Martial law? Nah. Much better flase flags for that.
( Insert you favorite false flag here )

Someone has way too much time on their hands.

The plane crashed.

Next case.

right... that is about as informative as saying the 911 buildings collapsed .... I find it hard to believe that would be a substitute for real critical analysis...

[sigma6]

This video is a spoof of all the Sandy Hook - Boston Bomb hoax videos that went viral. Good luck to the guy though - if it gets anywhere near the number of hits as the first Sandy Hook one did then job will be done and he'll be in the money big time.

That is a major cop out, I don't think anyone who listens to it is going to get the impression that the narrator is making a spoof... time for a reality check. If you are trying to misdirect people away. I would suggest to anyone to WATCH THE VIDEO for yourself and ask yourself if this guy sounds like he is trying to "spoof" us...

Also anyone who closely followed the 911 CGI plane video explanations, ie. why the planes looked like homogeneous black outlines with no real proper shading... can see the exact same thing in those hokey little "black oil smoke" clouds" which are supposedly make us "infer" they were coming from the top of the plane? (but the photos of the passengers casually leaving the plane afterward, show the roof is still intact... )

You would think people would begin to ask some hard questions... especially after the last load of sh** we have been living through for the last dozen years... some still aren't getting it, EVERYTHING is some form of misinformation... even if it is just because of a lack of understanding the real meaning of words being used, like the legal system for example... It's just standard protocol of the elite. Their sign of their superiority... Don't be afraid to breathe the air...

Not understanding (ignorance) is not a rationale or basis for justification of anything... but it is a good opportunity to ask a serious question.

[indigopete]

That is a major cop out, I don't think anyone who listens to it is going to get the impression that the narrator is making a spoof... time for a reality check. If you are trying to misdirect people away. I would suggest to anyone to WATCH THE VIDEO for yourself and ask yourself if this guy sounds like he is trying to "spoof" us...

All I'm saying is, where a plane crash is concerned, there's no need for additional theatre. Plane crashes are quite capable of providing their own drama.

Some events are clearly worth a closer look in order to determine what their real agenda is. 9/11 was 1 such event. The basis for questioning that was that it is not possible (and was not possible back in 2001) for members of the travelling public to get out of their seats and "steal" airliners in mid-air without there being any response from the appropriate agencies.

Boston (and possibly the cinema and school shootings) were other such events because there is a clear known agenda to promote authoritarian control which is served by faking terrorist attacks, so there is a motive.

A plane crash such as the San Fransisco one, however, is not. Some ambiguity about whether there was or wasn't a police officer rescuing people from the wreckage and collecting iPhones isn't a basis for a "hoax" call. If you watch the plane spotter's video from across the bay you'll see exactly what happened. The plane didn't somersault - it banked and rotated on it's yaw axis (i.e. the horizontal plane).

No doubt there is plenty of press nonsense and hyperbole - for example a police officer might have picked up 1 iPhone and that got turned into a story of heroics where the press added the "so they could call their loved ones" bit. All the same, calling these things out as hoaxes straight out of the bat is just adding to the atrophying credibility of today's alternative agendas and discussion forums.

These commentaries wouldn't be half as cringeable if they included something resembling a balanced analysis - i.e. all the evidence that it's not a hoax:

- the flights right behind it that had to "go around"
- the fact that there is a full record of the flight on ACARS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Communications_Addressing_and_Reporting_System
- the fact that it's a bit difficult to "fake" an aircrash at an airport in full view of air traffic control personnel
- the fact that there's no obvious reason to fake - or even enhance the drama of - such an event

There is, however, good reason to suspect that people will make dramatic disinfo videos like the one above discredit all the genuine ones that get made about "real" false flag events. There are also people who are kind of fanatical about this type of thing who basically can't believe anything they see on the news and go straight to the other extreme of creating "false news", rumour and disinfo themselves.

That video falls into one of the two above cases IMO.

[Hip Hipnotist]

"Motivation for this is still not completely understood."

That's because there is none.

Gun control? Nah. Much better false flags for that.
Martial law? Nah. Much better flase flags for that.
( Insert you favorite false flag here )

Someone has way too much time on their hands.

The plane crashed.

Next case.

right... that is about as informative as saying the 911 buildings collapsed .... I find it hard to believe that would be a substitute for real critical analysis...

Understood.

But before I give ( you ) my 'critical analysis' I'd like to ask you a question: Have you had some time to think of what 'might' have been motivation for this supposed 'false flag'. If so, I'd like to know. Motivation, in my often times limited view, perhaps even now, would reveal a good deal of why this could have been a 'false flag' event.

On to my 'critical analysis':

I have a family member that was at the airport ( terminal ) during the 'event'. Something happened that resembled what was reported. A plane crashed on landing. ( emergency vehicles, smoke etc. )

I am and have been a licensed pilot for 30+ years ( I say 'licensed' because I guess anyone can fly an airplane these days judging by what the media would have most sheep believe regarding 911 ). If indeed a 777 as described/reported did actually crash upon landing at SFO, and from what I know from the information I've gathered ( sure, it could all be 'fake' ) and my own personal aviation experience ( could also have been an 'illusion' ) there is a term known by ( probably ) all ( licensed ) pilots ( most likely even the one piloting the 777 in question ) that says, "Low and slow -- look out below!"

Which means if the aircraft you are flying is low to the ground and your airspeed is slow ( below 'stall' ) chances are damn good you're in for a rough landing. Why the 'pilot in command' ( in training or otherwise ) didn't realize this, not to mention the instructor pilot sitting next to him didn't either, before it was waaaay too late, is certainly open for debate. The fact is, if in fact any of this is factual -- the aircraft ( and all aboard ) got 'low and slow' and suffered the consequences.

And not to make anyone leery of flying ( as if being raped by the TSA wouldn't be enough ) this 'stuff' happens all the time but fortunately doesn't always end in disaster. By 'stuff' I mean mistakes made every day by experienced, professional pilots. You don't hear about them because they don't end in disaster therefore the MSN has nothing to spew -- factual or otherwise.

As for your closing statement, "People still aren't getting it, EVERYTHING is some form of misinformation... don't be afraid to breathe the air..."

Anything ( which means EVERYTHING I presume? ) I ( or you ) say is misinformation anyway.

Or perhaps I misunterstood.

-----------

BTW: I'm not afraid to breathe the air -- as polluted as it may ( or may not ) be. ;-)

[indigopete]

You would think people would begin to ask some hard questions

Yes, you would.

Such as why that 3rd emergency exit was left closed - the one the video poster likes to make so much of as hard evidence of a "hoax".

I've got my answer, have you ?

(Clue: in the seat back of every airliner flying today).

[Lazlo]

Seriously? A hoax? And we have mods thanking this type of ....#@$*&! ?

It is official. I am embarassed to be a part of this clown show. Everytime someone on this forum tries to be a voice of reason, or science, or evidence, or even common sense for crying out loud...

They get jumped on by somebody else who accuses them of being a shill or being unawake and then half the #$@%!&* forum thanks them for it.

I have seen it by nearly everyone (Pete, Hip, RMorgan and a few others excepted) here, including Bill himself. Admittedly, Bill is far more diplomatic than most.

I'm outta here.

Unsubscribed

Finis

The End

[greybeard]

Its rare that I post on this type of thread for one reason.
I would hate to be related to some one who lost love ones and happened upon threads that shout hoax.
Its very real if you loose some one dear to you.
I wish people would just pause and think before they enter into trying to attribute cause other than unfortunate event.
Genuine accidents do happen.
How can a guess at cause be made without full information?

I have a great respect for those on the forum that investigate thoroughly before voicing an educated opinion.
Can we not just wait till the apparent facts are know before jumping on the hoax band wagon?
I do accept that there are times that the public are deliberately miss-led.
I doubt this is one of them.

Chris

[Fred Steeves]

Seriously? A hoax? And we have mods thanking this type of ....#@$*&! ?

It is official. I am embarassed to be a part of this clown show. Everytime someone on this forum tries to be a voice of reason, or science, or evidence, or even common sense for crying out loud...

They get jumped on by somebody else who accuses them of being a shill or being unawake and then half the #$@%!&* forum thanks them for it.

I have seen it by nearly everyone (Pete, Hip, RMorgan and a few others excepted) here, including Bill himself. Admittedly, Bill is far more diplomatic than most.

I'm outta here.

Unsubscribed

Finis

The End

In "The Celestine Prophecy", this would be immediately recognized as the "Poor Me" drama being acted out.

Be well Lazlo,

Fred

[Knowrainknowrainbows!]

Its rare that I post on this type of thread for one reason.
I would hate to be related to some one who lost love ones and happened upon threads that shout hoax.
Its very real if you loose some one dear to you.
I wish people would just pause and think before they enter into trying to attribute cause other than unfortunate event.
Genuine accidents do happen.
How can a guess at cause be made without full information?

I have a great respect for those on the forum that investigate thoroughly before voicing an educated opinion.
Can we not just wait till the apparent facts are know before jumping on the hoax band wagon?
I do accept that there are times that the public are deliberately miss-led.
I doubt this is one of them.

Chris

I appreciate this approach and am usually very sensitive in this regard as I have been on the receiving end of "inappropriate comments/idle gossip".
So, thank you Chris for this perspective.
Glad to know there are pilots among us on the forum and I always appreciate learning from people with practical experience.

Much to learn.
Good to share.
KRKR

[Maunagarjana]

I can't for the life of me figure out why someone would go to such trouble to hoax such a pointless thing. Only thing I can think of is they could be practicing for a more significant hoax.

[indigopete]

In "The Celestine Prophecy", this would be immediately recognized as the "Poor Me" drama being acted out.


Fred -

If that's true, then all I can say is "there but for the grace..go I". At least Lazio had a justified basis for his frustration. The poster of that video on the other hand is the one who merits the comparison with the "control dramas".

Unfortunately, the forum will be poorer for the want of such points of view as Lazio's.

A lot has changed in the last few years regarding internet discourse. I remember when I first started "posting" on a public forum - it was quite a big step to make. You would certainly not post something that you hadn't put quite a bit of thought into because you knew you had a public audience and would get an instant reaction. Nowadays, people think nothing of sounding off on their iPhone at a bus stop at the drop of a hat.

It doesn't take a moment's reflection to see that there's about a "bus stop's worth" of research gone into the making of that video - no more.

For example, regarding the point about the closed 3rd exit door - if you've ever read a safety instruction card in an airplane you'll know why that exit was left shut. Overwing exits are NEVER to be used in the event of fire. In fact there will have been cabin crew standing next to it stopping people from opening it because it sits right on top of the fuel tank. (I realise that exit isn't right on top of the wing, but it will qualify as the 'overwing' one for operational purposes). They are for use mainly in emergency sea ditchings (in which the front and rear exits are to be kept closed and ONLY the overwing exit used). I'm not surprised the video doesn't mention that - it's purpose is not to inform, just to attract attention where none is merited (see what the "The Celestine Prophecy" has to say about that).

What I am surprised (and frustrated) at is the amount of un challenged acceptance this stuff gets on this forum. The same with the chemtrails stuff. So much of it is clearly bogus - it's stuff that people can check out for themselves and yet they don't bother. They'd rather stay in the conspiratorial comfort zone where there's a categorical "knowing".

Last year it was all the mass arrests nonsense, now it's "hoax mania" with a chemtrail desert. More heat than light. I can well understand why it turns people off.

Look !! Now I've wasted half an hour of my life because some self indulgent frustrated home detective let his belly rumble in the echo chamber of the internet dustbin. :eek: ... when we could be discussing important stuff like Michael Tellinger's discovery's of ancient stone circles all across South Africa or what's happening this summer at the Bosnian Pyramid !

Arrgghh ! :)

[sirdipswitch]

I can't for the life of me figure out why someone would go to such trouble to hoax such a pointless thing. Only thing I can think of is they could be practicing for a more significant hoax.


And what else was happening that day, that this pulled our attention away from... just a thought.

[DeDukshyn]

I can't for the life of me figure out why someone would go to such trouble to hoax such a pointless thing. Only thing I can think of is they could be practicing for a more significant hoax.


And what else was happening that day, that this pulled our attention away from... just a thought.

I think Obama was signing another executive order around that time ... Some one should try to dig this up, I haven't the time, but I did hear that claim somewhere in some reading that was backed with a little evidence.

On the whole "Is it a Hoax?!" issue, there may be clues in this 92 page thread populated by actual pilot's discussions, musings and opinions. I am not that interested in going through it but if someone is interested enough here is the forum URL -- might be some good clues in here as to the feasibility of this being staged as a distraction event for media eyes to follow. http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/518568-asiana-flight-crash-san-francisco.html

Instead of blatant accusations of a hoax, or crying like babies because someone did, we can do some research and add some value to the discussion. What a thought ;)

[sigma6]

If you watch the plane spotter's video from across the bay you'll see exactly what happened. The plane didn't somersault - it banked and rotated on it's yaw axis (i.e. the horizontal plane).

you mean the teeny outline of some shape, then tiny animated black smoke clouds coming out, then what "appears" to be the black outline of a "plane shape" of it turn around and upside down... and then apparently landing flat in the same direction it was going with all but two apparently dead??? that is what I would ambiguous at best... and clearly manipulated at worse... similar to the very well established by now, computer graphic manipulation shown and analyzed by thousands regarding the 911 planes.


All the same, calling these things out as hoaxes straight out of the bat is just adding to the atrophying credibility of today's alternative agendas and discussion forums.
far, far from it, calling it out as hoaxy is perfectly in line with the incredible lack of factual data about the incident as a whole... the "atrophying credibility"? is that straining the word "credibility" itself (lol)

Ohhhh... I think I get what yours saying your arguing over whether or not a plane crashed? is that what you're going on about...


OK. let me clarify that for I abosolutely think a plane crashed ... absolutely... I hope that clarifies things for you....

[DeDukshyn]

I never did watch the OP's video so I am "untainted" in that regard.

In the first image here, the fire is coming from behind the fuselage, it appears from the starboard engine. You can also see most people walking away with their overhead luggage. In e second image, the fire appears to have spread quite way across all the fuselage and burned out the entire ceiling / roof of it. (you can also see where the starboard engine was burning. I question how the fire spread how it did, this is not something I would have expected (I expect basic fire retardation of the fuselage), but clearly there is quite a large chunk of time between these two images.

http://crush.flightaware.com/~dbaker/AAR.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOg6uXWCQAEHJlB.png:large

[sigma6]

Have you had some time to think of what 'might' have been motivation for this supposed 'false flag'. If so, I'd like to know. Motivation, in my often times limited view, perhaps even now, would reveal a good deal of why this could have been a 'false flag' event.
- yes I have had some time, and the answer maybe surprising, but in a word... MONEY


am and have been a licensed pilot for 30+ years ( I say 'licensed' because I guess anyone can fly an airplane these days judging by what the media would have most sheep believe regarding 911 ). If indeed a 777 as described/reported did actually crash upon landing at SFO, and from what I know from the information I've gathered ( sure, it could all be 'fake' ) and my own personal aviation experience ( could also have been an 'illusion' ) there is a term known by ( probably ) all ( licensed ) pilots ( most likely even the one piloting the 777 in question ) that says, "Low and slow -- look out below!"


Ok before you go any further, Let me clarify for you... when someone says something is hoaxed it just means (imo) that the information being presented is not being accurately presented, how much is truth and how much is fiction is the point of the exercise. So for your benefit and everyone elses on this thread (since this is feeling like a rather distracting theme) NO ONE said or has argued that A plane didn't crash... The question is what was the real story... I mean come on folks how many times do you got to be slapped in the head before you realize it hurts... !!??

And if you're a pilot, do you really, honestly and truly believe that a 777 cartwheeled down a runway tooting out black smoke? before it came to a landing in the SAME direction, upside right, with the roof intact (only to explode and blow off after everyone departed, depending on which interpretation you want to "believe"? With all due respect I don't think you need to by a pilot to say that is impossible...

That is like the September Clues expose where they can clearly show the nose of the airplane passed through the building and showed up on the other side completely intact... That's the issue I mean go back and re-run that a few times, whoever was taking the picture had the lousiest possible angle. So I guess in that regard someone has learned a few lessons from 911... but not by much...

[sigma6]

but clearly there is quite a large chunk of time between these two images.
that's an understatement and you missed a whole slew of other striking differences... those people don't look like they just got out of a 777 that cartwheeled upside (and then flip back upright again... of course...) the grass is missing (probably died out) the pathway along side the plane is gone (probably just maintenance) and an upjutting piece of the wing where the engine was on the closest wing is missing (maybe taken for forensics.... yeah!) Point is they are two different scenes could even be two different planes, and if I'm not mistaken, that doesn't even look like the number 214!!! (huh?)

in other words, I'd have to agree, but that would be an understatement... and that was just looking at the two pictures that YOU presented for about 2 minutes...

[indigopete]

far, far from it, calling it out as hoaxy is perfectly in line with the incredible lack of factual data about the incident as a whole... the "atrophying credibility"? is that straining the word "credibility" itself (lol)

"incredible lack of factual data about the incident as a whole"

??? Please elucidate. As someone who has followed aviation incidents for about 30 years I can't think of a time when such an abundance of "factual data" was at the fingertips of any desktop Columbo who cared to avail themselves of it.

In addition to that, there are several hundred experienced airline pilots - many of whom have years of flying visual approaches onto that exact runway in that exact aircraft type - discussing this incident right now. Why don't you have a look and see what thing's they're questioning before you decide what's normal and what isn't in an event like this...http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/518568-asiana-flight-crash-san-francisco.html

[sigma6]

I can't for the life of me figure out why someone would go to such trouble to hoax such a pointless thing. Only thing I can think of is they could be practicing for a more significant hoax.

And what else was happening that day, that this pulled our attention away from... just a thought.

Ok this is getting closer to the punch, sirdipswitch, I was thinking about that in general, but I don't think that ties in, and it is too big a job to pull for simple "distraction" Now I also thought about Maunagarjana's idea, and that has potential, certainly can't discount it, but again it wouldn't make sense just to do a survey? Think bigger, what's the main event here. ( a plane crashing...) What is the deal with 777's? Well, lets see their new, their really big and expensive, and what else... There's a lot of controversy going on .... right now... about what? not sure but there maybe design flaw issues. Now this is just an exercise to show you, maybe it triggers another thought process in someone else... But what do all these major disasters is one thing these two disasters have in common... 911 and the Titanic? (if of course you believe in conspiracies (ie. that people lie sometimes and 'orchestrate' things, as shocking as that is to believe... :o))

In fact I will hold off and give others a chance, consider it a parlour game, what is the common denominator, and then how could that fit a "Asiana" 777.. And you know what, using the law of misdirection. Assuming they are putting so much "emphasis" on Asians and their "driving skills" and "Pilot ERROR" if you flip this around what could it really possibly point to??? Who wants to give it a go... ?

[Fred Ryan]

I work at the trauma hospital in San Francisco where many of the injured were taken. This was not a hoax. The plan did crash. Frankly, this entire thread is just plain silly.

[sigma6]

far, far from it, calling it out as hoaxy is perfectly in line with the incredible lack of factual data about the incident as a whole... the "atrophying credibility"? is that straining the word "credibility" itself (lol)

"incredible lack of factual data about the incident as a whole"

??? Please elucidate. As someone who has followed aviation incidents for about 30 years I can't think of a time when such an abundance of "factual data" was at the fingertips of any desktop Columbo who cared to avail themselves of it.

In addition to that, there are several hundred experienced airline pilots - many of whom have years of flying visual approaches onto that exact runway in that exact aircraft type - discussing this incident right now. Why don't you have a look and see what thing's they're questioning before you decide what's normal and what isn't in an event like this...http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/518568-asiana-flight-crash-san-francisco.html

third party conversation theorizing by pilots who are still living "inside the box", who haven't even speculated that we live in a world where everything is an illusion, that they are being controlled like sheeple, stroking each other's ego on technical scenarios, based on what is third party information being force fed into the main stream media, again all who were not immediately present is considered by you factual "factual data" ? I may be no Nancy Drew, but am I missing your point somehow?

is that enough elucidation?

[sigma6]

I work at the trauma hospital in San Francisco where many of the injured were taken. This was not a hoax. The plan did crash. Frankly, this entire thread is just plain silly.

Again, I don't get it with people, can we not pick up the level of sophistication here, building collapsed and people died in 911, (heck one guy even said he found a dead body in a closet??? anyone hear that one?? but not ONE question... yawn...) People got shot and died in Sandyhook including the party that supposedly did it, he shot himself and also felt compelled to shoot his own mother.... This is not evidence that they were not rigged for public consumption... and Fred read the previous posts man! NO ONE is denying the plane crashed... I still think there is more to the story.

[sigma6]

That is a major cop out, I don't think anyone who listens to it is going to get the impression that the narrator is making a spoof... time for a reality check. If you are trying to misdirect people away. I would suggest to anyone to WATCH THE VIDEO for yourself and ask yourself if this guy sounds like he is trying to "spoof" us...

There is, however, good reason to suspect that people will make dramatic disinfo videos like the one above discredit all the genuine ones that get made about "real" false flag events. There are also people who are kind of fanatical about this type of thing who basically can't believe anything they see on the news and go straight to the other extreme of creating "false news", rumour and disinfo themselves.

That video falls into one of the two above cases IMO.

I removed most of the top and will give you a response, since most of it was in agreement the four bullets, I have explained and still find it odd that others think the point of this thread is to say whether a plane crashed or not, if it was real or a "hoax" there would still have to be something crashing... I really hope this is clear. Move on to the next level (lol) But that last paragraph... really caught my attention, I mean that is a great play of ideas, a nice sucker punch at the end, the "dramatic disinfo videos to discredit all the genuine ones... " not even sure if I want to touch that one... but I will say this...

The photos.... THE PHOTOs and that cheesy video taken from a mile away with the black smoke and spinning 777 effect, are what is making people ask questions. And granted they might not treat Asians the same as other Citizens but I don't recall the last time anyone would insist that people calmly file out, and insist that they bring their luggage with them after having been in a 777 doing backflips, cartwheels, and then spinning around and landing back on it's belly. With only one Children's ambulance (doing nothing) and another emergency vehicle with two chicks looking like bored extras on a movie set... (ie. doing nothing but looking at their shoes...)

Doesn't the claim that the "asians" would take their luggage instead of their own children and "only the "brave american police officer" had to go back in and collect their cell phones???.. Doesn't that sound like counter propaganda to ANYONE???? Is it possible they got hundreds of responses from people and realized they had to make a cover story for to gloss over why people were just meandering along as if on another boring flight with some casually looking like they were making their "pick up" calls... Who put out that story??? How could the get it so wrong? Where is the "brave american cop" who had to go "rescue" people's cell phones???? WTH....

Maybe it is a test, maybe it is a test to see just exactly how much they have to spend to do something like this while dumping a 777, while focusing the plublic's attention on Asian's that don't know how to fly airplanes, while they are collecting millions in insurance money. Consider it a cost/benefit analysis. The US airline is aging, expect to see more crashes in the future.

Now the question is. Would rich elite billionaires honestly do something like that? And the answer is.... ONLY if they can get away with it...

So yeah, that was my line of reasoning, why spend 20 billion tearing down a building with health and safety issues when you can collect 5 billion by just blowing it up in everyone's face? (suck up that asbestos NY and like it!... yes Mr Weinstein...) Not to mention a whole slew of side benefits for the Banksters, (stolen gold) FBI/CIA (missing records) Military (false flag) the elite (pumped more fear into the public) etc etc etc .... We may not have that much imagination... but not to worry ... I am sure someone else will look after that for you too....

[Tesseract]

In the first image here, the fire is coming from behind the fuselage, it appears from the starboard engine. You can also see most people walking away with their overhead luggage. In e second image, the fire appears to have spread quite way across all the fuselage and burned out the entire ceiling / roof of it. (you can also see where the starboard engine was burning. I question how the fire spread how it did, this is not something I would have expected (I expect basic fire retardation of the fuselage), but clearly there is quite a large chunk of time between these two images.



I have been thinking about the fire after seeing the following two videos (via the pprune link):

WczPnDDipKw

DDR6DO3WnZ8

Initially a fire is burning slowly, or something is just smouldering, somewhere near the mid section of the plane. Note that the back of the plane (the cross section) is a hole because the tail broke off. Any fire, once a moderate size, that starts in the middle of the plane will burn with ferocity due to a convectively drawn inflow of air from that hole in the back. Once there is a hole in the top of the fuselage the effect will intensify. The plane is basically a large bunsen burner at that point. I think the video illustrates this fairly well. It's going to be hard to extinguish because the fuselage protects the fire from the jets of water being sprayed.

Another note: an oxygen bottle could have been damaged in the crash, perhaps assisting any fire that was present. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_30.

Regarding 777s
What are the three sources of oxygen on the 777? Two independent oxygen systems are provided, one for the flight crew and one for the passengers. Portable oxygen cylinders are located throughout the airplane for emergency use. Some question though over how much oxygen is stored on a 777 and how much is generated on demand.

http://quizlet.com/11368500/boeing-777-fcom-1-airplane-general-flash-cards/

[indigopete]

third party conversation theorizing by pilots who are still living "inside the box", who haven't even speculated that we live in a world where everything is an illusion, that they are being controlled like sheeple, stroking each other's ego on technical scenarios, based on what is third party information being force fed into the main stream media

Please stop this.

You're turning what was once a metaphorical (and in some limited cases literal) observation by people like David Icke into an tribalistic religion and arrogant trashing of entire categories of people you know nothing about.

If the idea that this was a genuine accident requires such a stretch of the imagination then I hate to think what size of "box" your living in.

One thing's for sure, watching half-baked conspiracy videos on Youtube isn't going to make it any bigger.

[ThePythonicCow]

I work at the trauma hospital in San Francisco where many of the injured were taken. This was not a hoax. The plan did crash. Frankly, this entire thread is just plain silly.

Thanks.

What the thread might be demonstrating is that what is reported on the news for this accident, both words and images, is unreliable and inconsistent.

[Fred Ryan]

I work at the trauma hospital in San Francisco where many of the injured were taken. This was not a hoax. The plan did crash. Frankly, this entire thread is just plain silly.

Again, I don't get it with people, can we not pick up the level of sophistication here, building collapsed and people died in 911, (heck one guy even said he found a dead body in a closet??? anyone hear that one?? but not ONE question... yawn...) People got shot and died in Sandyhook including the party that supposedly did it, he shot himself and also felt compelled to shoot his own mother.... This is not evidence that they were not rigged for public consumption... and Fred read the previous posts man! NO ONE is denying the plane crashed... I still think there is more to the story.

I agree with you, "Can we not pick up the level of sophistication?". Accidents happen, planes crash and not everything's a conspiracy. Oh ya, maybe your all right. It was probably a ritual sacrafice to honor Saturday's start of the yearly Bohemian Grove meeting.

[sigma6]

third party conversation theorizing by pilots who are still living "inside the box", who haven't even speculated that we live in a world where everything is an illusion, that they are being controlled like sheeple, stroking each other's ego on technical scenarios, based on what is third party information being force fed into the main stream media

Please stop this.
You're turning what was once a metaphorical (and in some limited cases literal) observation by people like David Icke into an tribalistic religion and arrogant trashing of entire categories of people you know nothing about.
If the idea that this was a genuine accident requires such a stretch of the imagination then I hate to think what size of "box" your living in.
One thing's for sure, watching half-baked conspiracy videos on Youtube isn't going to make it any bigger.

Now you are getting really bizarre, it may have been an accident it might not have been, I don't know and obviously you don't either, that you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel and knock youtube and it's "half baked" conspiracy videos and reference "triabalistic religion"??? almost hurts (its so cheesy and melodramatic, but then I am not the master of metaphors)

Those videos are reproductions of Main Stream Media news outlets ... pull your head out man.... you have an issue with someone questioning your definition of "factual data" ??? Didn't think that someone might question third party conjecture based on questionable and ambiguous main stream media and "factual data" as oxymoronic?

So we change the topic to "conspiracy videos on Youtube"... (moo hoo hahaha) right.... and "triabalistic religion" Wow man, you are doing more 180's then that 777 did flying down the runway, and I can almost see the toots of black smoke billowing out as you tumble along... WTH are you doing on this thread? Didn't you read the Topic header?

[sigma6]

I worked in a hospital once Frank, and therefore I don't have to explain to you what a cesspool of politics and gossip it is... And it is no secret they are controlled by government policy and the administration staff of these institutions are, lets say... worse then politicians... your description was vague. And you left out one part, Planes crash, people get hurt and some parties collect untold millions in insurance... hard to say...



What the thread might be demonstrating is that what is reported on the news for this accident, both words and images, is unreliable and inconsistent.
again a huge understatement, I mean really when was the last time you seen the grass just disappear from an acre of visible land, not to mention the concrete path beside the plane... these are eyesores...

And they don't allow people just to walk away from a fatal accidents like that,where by all rights everyone should have been burnt alive and mashed up... NO WAY it's a HUGE INSURANCE LIABILITY... (yeah sorry it's not so much that they care... it's always about the money...

[KiwiElf]

I would say that I think some people on this (ridiculous) thread are suffering massive doses of paranoia (and ought to research a few more airplane crashes from history). Pilot error - plain and simple (and it DID happen). Yes, we're all entitled to an opinion but what is yours based on? RESEARCHED Fact, FEAR or fiction?

[sigma6]

I would say that I think some people on this (ridiculous) thread are suffering massive doses of paranoia (and ought to research a few more airplane crashes from history). Pilot error - plain and simple (and it DID happen). Yes, we're all entitled to an opinion but what is yours based on? RESEARCHED Fact, FEAR or fiction?

Videos and photos presented to the public from the main stream media that defy logical interpretation... and therefore are demanding questions... I notice all the naysayers all refuse to acknowledge the evidence presented but instead talk about "paranoia" and "conspiracy theories" again what are you folks doing on this thread?... and why no commentary on the available photos. And acknowledgement to those who do, which is largely and naturally without much effort clearly in the AMBIGUOUS to ridiculously impossible category...

[KiwiElf]

What am I doing on this thread? Aviation is a field of expertise I DO possess. I'm laughing - hysterically!

[Sidney]

I would say that I think some people on this (ridiculous) thread are suffering massive doses of paranoia (and ought to research a few more airplane crashes from history). Pilot error - plain and simple (and it DID happen). Yes, we're all entitled to an opinion but what is yours based on? RESEARCHED Fact, FEAR or fiction?

My opinion that mainstream media cannot be trusted is based on a PATTERN. A very LONGGGGG pattern of lies, along with government. Media and Gov't are joined at the hip. C'Mon. Obama got a NOBEL PEACE prize for increasing WAR .
That for starters.
Have you even watch the video that the OP posted? The subject of this plane crash warrants a closer look. Just like Sandy hook, Boston, and 911.

[indigopete]

Now you are getting really bizarre, it may have been an accident it might not have been, I don't know and obviously you don't either

That's true, I don't know if it was a "fake" accident.

I also don't know if you're a plain and simple troll sent here to disrupt genuine discourse with a lot of unwarranted nonsense and the setting up of straw men all over the place. So I've got to make a decision on *which* of the two is more likely.

Guess which one's winning.

[sigma6]

Now you are getting really bizarre, it may have been an accident it might not have been, I don't know and obviously you don't either
That's true, I don't know if it was a "fake" accident.
I also don't know if you're a plain and simple troll sent here to disrupt genuine discourse with a lot of unwarranted nonsense and the setting up of straw men all over the place. So I've got to make a decision on *which* of the two is more likely.
Guess which one's winning.

That's your response? (ouch) I guess you knew where I was leading with your responses... shall we take a vote indigopetey?
I just made a clear statement that people who don't want to discuss alternative explanations are free to find a thread on good fairies and I will have all the respect for you... (not my agreement, and if you asked my opinion, you'd get it...) But I wouldn't see the point in going into a thread and trying to be the expert on who is justified in having an opinion on an alternative opinion or not... you really think your judgement of other's logical analysis of illogical information is really that up to par?... from a guy who considers 3rd party theorizing as "factual data" I'd say you are really stretching yourself thin, but that is just my opinion... based on what little I have to deal with ...

And the second complaint is why are the naysayers not at the VERY LEAST dealing with the actual information presented? Isn't that considered a troll technique, granted this is a tad more sophisticated but all I hear is attacks on me, and tribal boogeymen, and not being comparable to the great David Icke, to living in a box... etc, etc, etc ad nauseum... HEY SHOUT OUT .... Can someone please discuss the information the pictures, the videos and commentary that has been dished out by the media!!! HELLOO!!!

I am looking for analysis of the information that is being provided by the media... not this trashy ego point game, I'm not in high school anymore... so the thrill of the cheap point, although it is childs play to me, doesn't have the same thrill.... BACK ON POINT PLEASE...

[sigma6]

What am I doing on this thread? Aviation is a field of expertise I DO possess. I'm laughing - hysterically!

Then quit talking about yourself and give explanation to the video, images and commentary... and if you think you need to be an aviation expert to do that all the better...

[ThePythonicCow]

Should I rename this thread to "Who is the troll today?" :).

:focus:

[KiwiElf]

The plane was approaching too slowly and virtually stalled on the runway - pilot(s) error (and that was at approx 125 kts at impact - the recommended approach speed is 137 kts). Fire broke out after the impact (nothing unusual there - I recommend you look at the ramains of the China Airlines 737 that caught fire from overheated brakes at Okinawa several years ago after it had PARKED).
And yes, I am a pilot for your LEARN-ED information. You... and the idiot who made this video, are talking complete rubbish.

Do the press/MSM exaggerate? Scramble their facts? YES! No argument. This was an unfortunate accident - nothing more, nothing less. Believe what you want :)

[sigma6]

That's a disappointing response Paul... is that supposed to encourage your friends as they struggle to come up with more non related topic matter, once again,
Now that we hopefully got through the trash talk, distraction and cheap shots of other's character,

I would encourage others who have PHOTOS, VIDEO or any media commentary with analysis, and I won't deny I would be interested if you found something that seems odd, out of place, contradictory, etc... Which I don't think will be that difficult... and you don't have to be an expert in any special field either. You just have to have an opinion based on what you have come across, I am sure there are plenty more anomalies...

Again it has been pointed out that planes can and do crash... and I would have to agree that I am hard pressed to believe that they don't... I am more focused on the context, since we know media is controlled. The only mistakes they make is on quality. And that exposes flaws and points to things they may be trying to hide in what they have been told to "project" onto the public. Assume nothing. Question everything.

[indigopete]

I am looking for analysis of the information that is being provided by the media... not this trashy ego point game, I'm not in high school anymore... so the thrill of the cheap point, although it is childs play to me, doesn't have the same thrill.... BACK ON POINT PLEASE

The reason you've not got many takers for that is that the video is a spoof.

It's a guy taking the 'P' out of the whole Sandy Hook / Cinema shootings video analysis frenzies. He's just going through picking up on any old thing he can think of and making a point out of it for point's sake.

For example - the grass. He shows one photo of the grass from 5 feet away and says "note the long grass". Then compares it with an aerial shot from a helicopter at about 500 feet " - well, surprise surprise, the grass looks shorter.

The whole thing's a string of spoof observations in a similar vein.

Maybe the joke's lost on you - I'm sure it's lost on those who were involved. It's certainly wasted a lot of bandwidth.

[ThePythonicCow]

That's a disappointing response Paul...
My sarcasm was unclear, sorry.

I recommend that members quit implying you're a troll, and that several of those posting here quit making this personal.

Let's get back to the reports of this crash, and the discrepancies that you brought to the table.

==

My present guess, on that topic, is that:

Korean pilots have less hands on flying time, more time on auto pilot, than say US pilots.
This pilot was coming in low and slow, and did have very little time in that aircraft.
His co-pilot had more time in that aircraft, but reacted too late to apply power.
There was a crash, and there were injuries.
What is reported is, as your opening post demonstrates, a confused mess.

[sigma6]

I am looking for analysis of the information that is being provided by the media... not this trashy ego point game, I'm not in high school anymore... so the thrill of the cheap point, although it is childs play to me, doesn't have the same thrill.... BACK ON POINT PLEASE
The reason you've not got many takers for that is that the video is a spoof.
It's a guy taking the 'P' out of the whole Sandy Hook / Cinema shootings video analysis frenzies. He's just going through picking up on any old thing he can think of and making a point out of it for point's sake.
For example - the grass. He shows one photo of the grass from 5 feet away and says "note the long grass". Then compares it with an aerial shot from a helicopter at about 500 feet " - well, surprise surprise, the grass looks shorter.
The whole thing's a string of spoof observations in a similar vein.
Maybe the joke's lost on you - I'm sure it's lost on those who were involved. It's certainly wasted a lot of bandwidth.

Ok I guess have to give that an e for effort, thanks for the rehash of your previous post...
but you do have something to go with, I wonder if others think the dirt is actually grass but you just can't "see it"?

and thank you Paul for clarification and focus on topic...
Now that is another interesting issue, I have read some very good articles that regarding this low flying, I have heard that it is a favoured technique of many alphabet agencies both east and west, (with enough sophisticated technology) that can cause a planes instrumentation to give false readings that cause the crash in the first place...

In other cases they can cause the plane to crash into a mountain, this reminds me of JFK junior's crash...

[ThePythonicCow]

Suggest listening to Joel Skousen http://www.talkshoe.com/resources/talkshoe/images/swf/lastEpisodePlayer.swf?fileUrl=http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/ekorw2wzs4/rense.20130709.3of3.mp3 starts at approximately12:00 concerning the lack of hands on training by Korean pilots who are good at memorizing but lack experience without autopilot.

I wouldn't dismiss it as a MSN hoax but definitely something that will not be covered by lamestream media.
I found Joel Skousen's explanation of the different standards for Korean commercial pilots to be convincing.

I also give credence to the report that some of the landing instruments on the ground at SFO were disabled due to some maintenance, so the plane was landing using hands flying, not auto pilot.

I remain comfortable with the basic scenario - that he was coming in "low and slow", and that the co-pilot (perhaps with too little time himself flying off autopilot) was tardy in grabbing control or powering up for a fly-over.

===

At the same time, the discrepancies reported in sigma6's posts do not surprise me. My disrespect for American news media is deeper and stronger than anything I might think about Korean commercial pilots.

[ThePythonicCow]

http://crush.flightaware.com/~dbaker/AAR.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOg6uXWCQAEHJlB.png:large
Looking at these two photos:

The grass in the first one is not three feet (as the video in the opening post said) but more like three inches.
The grass or ground above the lime green fire truck in the second image appears to have similar tire marks as the grass in the first image, and similar coloring (allowing for the darker image.)
The pavement that cuts across the foreground of the first image may or may not be in the part of the second image that obscures the ground with the fire truck and some sort of white stuff (the foam?)

In sum, I don't see unambiguous differences that force me to conclude that these are images of different planes or on different days (much less different years, as the video in the opening post said).

[Mike]

Should I rename this thread to "Who is the troll today?" :).

:focus:


A poll, perhaps?;)

(More sarcasm...)

[sigma6]

Also all this emphasis on Pilot error in an age of remote control of instrumentation... Also if that is true that "landing instruments on the ground at SFO were disabled" that could be significant, what if that was the case AND his instrumentation was giving false readings. That would be a doozy! So there is lots of angles to consider.

Reminds me of the emphasis on the lone gun theory in JFK's murder, in that case, by doing so it limited Federal investigation, and left to be manipulated by the very State that should have been suspected. (not that the FBI looked like they would have done anything)

So I am saying the idea of putting so much pre-emptive focus on something so early is questionable... and what could be the implications, or further contexts, possible mis-directions? For example what is the insurance liability interpretation? If the fault was the ground station? vs if the fault was the pilot? or even worse, the combination of the two, all suppositions mind you...

[KiwiElf]

Paul brings up some interesting facts regarding diminishing "pilotage" skills. FLYING magazine has run several articles over the last few months regarding high-tech cockpits versus training (or lack thereof) and basic hand flying skills. The Cirrus, a top selling general aviation aircraft with a "glass cockpit" (essentially 2 or 3 TV screens instead of little round dials), and the only one flying with a built in parachute for the whole aircraft, is widely heralded as one, if not THE safest aircraft flying. The accident statistics would say otherwise - it has a disproportionately higher accident rate compared to other aircraft in its class. Over 95% = pilot error, ie too much (over) confidence in the technology. Pilots trained on this aircraft and others like it with glass cockpits also showed a noticeably higher lack of pilotage (hand flying) skills. Same can be said for modern cars, which may indeed be safer on paper, but drivers on the whole have become more complacent, lazier and UNsafer, as accident statistics would bear out.

[sigma6]

That also brings up the issue of driving by instrumentation vs driving (or flying) by direct sensory, and in the case of a huge 777 I am going to guess you would be hard pressed to differentiate the experience from a simulator... and in both cases, the more instrumentation the easier to remote control the systems... and if that happened, without any expectation on the part of the operator (and even with) your toast... we know this happens, question is does this apply here?

have they made the black box recording public yet?

[KiwiElf]

The simulators are pretty good actually - but your mind tricks you - it's just a simulation - you cannot die or be injured. Life is not like that. But culture has probably played a roll here too. Not just Korean culture but flying culture. Does a "junior" officer question the skills of his superior (instructor)? No, not if he wants to keep his job. (They will both probably lose their jobs in this case anyway, and as it happened on US soil, they can be sued - astronomical amounts). Also budget airlines versus full-pay-service airline. The budget airlines are cost cutting (often on maintenance and pilot training) no matter how you look at it.

Even the most experienced pilots have fracked up. It happens. That's life.

Yes, the initial black box results are in - give me a moment and I'll paste them here.

- EDIT -

"Vref was apparently 137 kts. Rate of Descent after passing 1400ft increased to 1380 fpm down until 600 ft.
Idle power to 400 ft. Late "SPEED" callout and then TOGA applied. Ideally the aircraft should have been onslope at 142 kts (137 + 5) at around 650 to 700 fpm ROD.
It would all appear consistent with an unstabilised approach. With a heavy aircraft, a high ROD and speed well below VRef the aircraft would be well on the backside of the drag curve with a significant delay in a transition from descent to climb."

22018

[ThePythonicCow]

That also brings up the issue of driving by instrumentation vs driving (or flying) by direct sensory, and in the case of a huge 777 I am going to guess you would be hard pressed to differentiate the experience from a simulator... and in both cases, the more instrumentation the easy to remote control the systems...
I'll agree that we (well, "they") can certainly remotely control such planes, and that they sometimes do so, and sometimes they are up to no good when they do so.

Much will depend, in my mind, on what future actions are taken by the powers that be, using this crash as a justification.

Sometimes pilot error and plane crashes really are pilot error and plane crashes. Sometimes they aren't.

If they treat this like a reasonably honest crash investigation, and if any policy or procedure or mechanical changes that come out of this investigation seem reasonable to me, in light of the evidence presented (or suspected to be suppressed), then fine.

If this turns into another "operation" for nefarious purposes, then may the bastards in power go to hell in a handcart, real soon now.

[gittarpikk]

Please note I have placed my quotes in red ...inside of the original quote



In "The Celestine Prophecy", this would be immediately recognized as the "Poor Me" drama being acted out.




A lot has changed in the last few years regarding internet discourse. I remember when I first started "posting" on a public forum - it was quite a big step to make. You would certainly not post something that you hadn't put quite a bit of thought into because you knew you had a public audience and would get an instant reaction. Nowadays, people think nothing of sounding off on their iPhone at a bus stop at the drop of a hat.

I agree 100%!!... having been an international moderator ...pre-internet...(back in the BBS days) people gave a LOT more thought to what they said as there was plenty of eyeballs viewing and a lot more critical thinking going on with plenty of time to edit anything written before it got 'uploaded'


For example, regarding the point about the closed 3rd exit door - if you've ever read a safety instruction card in an airplane you'll know why that exit was left shut. Overwing exits are NEVER to be used in the event of fire. In fact there will have been cabin crew standing next to it stopping people from opening it because it sits right on top of the fuel tank. (I realise that exit isn't right on top of the wing, but it will qualify as the 'overwing' one for operational purposes). They are for use mainly in emergency sea ditchings (in which the front and rear exits are to be kept closed and ONLY the overwing exit used).

you are exactly right my friend...flight crews are well trained



I'm not surprised the video doesn't mention that - it's purpose is not to inform, just to attract attention where none is merited (see what the "The Celestine Prophecy" has to say about that).

What I am surprised (and frustrated) at is the amount of un challenged acceptance this stuff gets on this forum. The same with the chemtrails stuff. So much of it is clearly bogus - it's stuff that people can check out for themselves and yet they don't bother. They'd rather stay in the conspiratorial comfort zone where there's a categorical "knowing".

another 'home run'!!... I've seen so many chicken little posts about chemtrails ...from people who know absolutely nothing about what really causes a contrail...and even less about what effect various types of weather , humidity and pressure has on contrails. If they see a contrail....their damn sure its a chemtrail...period and offer the lamest non-scientific 'conspiracy theory' regurgitation's as to how you tell the difference.

I know for a fact that there ARE planes that seed clouds etc...and take part upper atmosphere testing by spraying...it is a fact (been going on way before jets and is used to modify /assist weather such as rain where needed)...but waaaaay too many of simple contrails are considered chemtrails for reasons as you described. I am not saying evil does not exist...especially within this guberment...but IMHO, way to much 'credit' is given them concerning this chemtrail issue.

BTW... the video of that plane crashing was accurate...not cgi on the basis that it did exactly what a plane would do with the tail broken off .This is exactly what would happen if a plane was too low and hit the edge of the runway at a very nose high attitude...caused by a stall...and is what delta winged craft do when power is applied and wing stalls... A delta will go into 'high alpha' if stalled very easily
In this instance ,the tail less plane pancaked crushing the landing gear...and skidded at high speed until enough air was under the wing to lift it and allow the changed center of gravity and lack of tail to keep the nose pointed forward whipping it around to the new direction.

The passengers , I am sure, would experience a lot of g forces but were strapped in as was the luggage and the plane maintained sufficient integrity to not break apart as it was skidding flat on the ground and due to this saved a LOT of peoples lives.... great engineering here and a fine example of how it is meant to work.

The wing did NOT strike anything that would have dislodged them and is why they did not tear off....again exactly what would happen if you built a few solid models (balanced like the full scale plane) and threw them on the ground in a similar angle breaking off the tail .

One could easily mimic that crash

This is a sort of 'ground loop'...and happens a lot on a poorly landed RC plane.(unfortunately ,we get to see more than a fair share of such landings due to learning rc pilots and get to go 'pick up the pieces') I design a LOT of planes...very unusual non-conventional ones and fully understand the dynamics of any plane that is missing 'parts'...or not

Good observation...and you easily caught the true agenda of the author of the video.

[indigopete]

Also all this emphasis on Pilot error in an age of remote control of instrumentation... Also if that is true "landing instruments on the ground at SFO were disabled is significant" so there is suspicion but no real solid evidence.

There's no mystery to that. It's a documented fact that the Instrument Landing System was out of service at SFO for that week. It's also an easily checkable fact that the flight was high on the approach early on. What does that mean ? 2 things:

[1] - instead of aborting the approach as being "unstable" at 500 feet, the crew continued with a very low power setting (to try to 'loose' the height)

[2] - this is very dangerous in a jet, not so much in a piston, but in a jet if you suddenly need to restore the power from idle it can take up to 10 seconds for the turbines in the engine to "spool up". That's because in a high bypass turbofan, the inner most turbine spools first but it takes time for that power to propagate to the outer turbine and the fan (the big thing that sucks the air into the intakes)

So, what seems to have happened is:

[a] - the crew was instructed to do a visual approach (not that unusual)
[b] - they were a bit high early on and overcompensated with the rate of descent
[c] - they applied power at the last minute to get back on the glidepath but the engine response wasn't quick enough at that height to get them back on

You might say "but why don't more of them crash because of unresponsive engines". They don't because it's standard procedure to land with a lot of flap and a high power setting on a stabilised approach at about 8 miles. If you've already got all that flap on then the only way to increase the descent angle is to reduce power.

POINT ABOUT EMERGENCY EXIT
I made this point before but in case it was missed. The video makes great play of the 3rd exit door being closed when the plane was evacuated. But this is what you would expect in a 'real' emergency. The 3rd door is the overwing exit which cabin crew would not open if there was a hint of a fire. So far from this being evidence of something "fishy", it's actually evidence of something "not being fishy".

VIDEO CGI
The video makes play of the "spotters" footage having the crash plane "CGId" in. Well he's entitled to his opinion, but what's on that footage is totally consistent with what the NTSB have so far described and with what witnesses described.

I wouldn't put much store in whether it's consistent or not with what the newspapers and Fox News say.

In short, there's not one thing in that video that isn't the work of an attention seeking idle mind who thinks he can tell the length of a blade of grass from a helicopter picture.

If you want to waste bandwith though, on it be my guest.

[sigma6]

Everything not withstanding the media spin still doesn't add up. They are not just idiots, they look like idiots because the more ridiculous the spin they are told to put on things in the short amount of tiem they are given, the more chance of slopping it up... So this looks like they were told to slather this thing and put everything on the pilot. And if so the the quest is why?

Maybe Paul has something, maybe people on the ground realized they were liable and already going into "SPIN" mode.
The insurance liability issue could explain a lot of things then...

i.e. if ground equipment that is normally a part of the incoming flight co-ordination is "down" for any reason when a 777 is incoming... I don't think that will count as "zero liability" and I am sure there are plenty more interacting variables...

[Hip Hipnotist]

Okay. This wasn't easy but I did it. I bit the bullet ( actually my lip ) and went back as you requested and looked at the video you posted.

Granted, I only got through about five minutes but that's all the 'concrete evidence' I needed. I use the words, 'concrete evidence' because that's what is quoted from the mouth of the Youtube poster guy. I'm gonna make this pretty quick 'cause "Dancing With The Stars" is about to come on and I need my daily dose of dumb down.

At approximately 4:39 into the video Youtube poster guy says he's got "Concrete evidence" the event was staged, never happened. ( At least you seem to agree with the assumption that there actually was a plane crash, at least something that resembles one. ) He goes on to say, with the help of an aircraft tracking site link, that July 4 was the last flight that flight 214 has ever taken. Well, not being one to believe everything I hear, especially from some Youtube poster guy I quickly dialed in the flight tracking site I frequently use ( to spy on my flying buddies ) and low and behold, flight 214 magically appears on July 6, the day of the event. Imagine my surprise.

Oh, don't take my word for it -- see for yourself:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/HL7742/history/20130706/0730Z/RKSI/KSFO

But then again, what is really real? I mean, really?

So then the Youtube poster guy goes on to say something about the numbers on the wing making reference to HL7742 not being AAR214 therefore supposedly meaning it's not the same aircraft -- therefore meaning FAKE!

Well, here's a little inside pilot kind of info ( in the box kind'a info ) -- the numbers on the wing, HL7742 represent the aircraft registration number and NOT the flight number which was 214 or R214 or AAR214 or whatever you wanna call it. Just don't call it late. ;-)

Don't tell the Youtube poster guy that that really was the flight in question ( real or otherwise, this world or another, twilight zone or not ) 'cause we don't wanna blow smoke up his ........ theory. I actually watched a few minutes more and actually started taking more notes but then realized I was about to miss my daily dose of dumb down and miss "Dancing With The Stars".

sigma6, believe it or not this is NO offense to you. We all have opinions. Some more passionate than others. But that's all they are, opinions, our own, the only ones we're capable of giving. Mine is that this 'event' was an unfortunate accident caused by at least two pilots probably distracted by a gorgeous flight attendant sitting atop one of their laps. Maybe both their laps.

Perhaps if your thread was titled something more in line with, "Is San Fran Asiana Flight 214 Another MSM Hoax?" with emphasis on the question I wouldn't be typing this now.

Then again I'm always up for some friendly woop-ass. ;-)))))))

[Mike]

Probably better to be a little hypercritical, even paranoid, and get it wrong more often than right, then to go with the mainstream and perhaps be right more often than wrong. No harm is done in the former; questioning never hurt anybody. But in the latter, something profound is lost and the ramifications unending if a real "conspiracy" is missed.

We have no choice but to be diligent - the state of the world demands it. 911, The Gulf Of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor...the list goes on. If these events are possible, anything is.

I do understand the counter argument here: I will sometimes groan when I see threads like this. I am so sick n tired of each and every event being thought of as a conspiracy. Its so tiresome. And yet, picking every last event apart, right down to the minutiae, feels more and more like an obligation these days. We can't afford to miss anything...

[Cristian]

"Is San Fran Asiana Flight 214 Another MSM Hoax?"

Paul...? :P

[sigma6]

OK, I went back too,
It's too bad we didn't stick to our opinions, and stayed on topic too, as we could have came to your post a little bit more earlier (then 63 posts :( and I do find what you are saying as commendable and rational and your pilot experience is definitely an asset in this instance...

And if Paul wants to change the Title to Is San Fran Asiana Flight 214 Another MSM Hoax? I am open to it ... no problem... Actually thank you Hip, for bringing in some hard and pertinent research... that is the first decent post on this thread. That it took 63 posts, I will overlook and still express my gratefulness. I have no problem with owning up given the information you have provided... and in fact I might go back to the Youtube and post some of your information... to provide to Max.

I think the hoax aspect is more on the media spin which drew my attention... there IS DEFINITELY something to it... and it also looks like I may have found my answer there too... contrary to others saying it just because they are incompetent, and therefore we have to discount it... (???)

But nonetheless, whatever the "motivation" there is clear intention to misrepresent this and the MILE AWAY SHOT is suspect.
i.e.
at 27:45 is golden ... more spin reporter talking to Senior FAA Official: "This stunning given the image that we are looking at... and the description by at least one eye witness... of what happened... Have you ever heard of a tail coming off of a plane as it's landing?"
" Ahh no I have not... ummm and I would also caution viewers that ahhh... early eye witness reports are frequently wrong. Ummm just because People aren't really ... they don't understand what they are really watching, or they are not prepared to see what they are going to see (he laughs) ... like..."????

Why would a Senior Official just immediately discredit an eye witness report like that point blank??? and he also exposes something else here then. Amazingly he ADMITS there was ONLY ONE eyewitness. Like this plane landed in the middle of the desert or something... So that means not withstanding the eyewitness who has already been "discredited" and obviously there is NO NEED to televise the ONLY EYE WITNESS That means ALL the information is coming from Controlled Parties of Interest...
Sorry but that alone stinks to high hell...

Also:
I don't see an entire acre looking like grass just because your a few hundred feet up?
And the fact that the foam was missing AFTER they put the fire out...
Different Planes with different accident holes at 13:40
Also you can see tire tracks from the trucks but you can't see ANYTHING to indicate from which direction the plane was... NO TRACKS for the plane
I like how he says at 15:44 NO fire... plane is evacuated, but they couldn't contain a fire that hadn't even started yet???
His assessment of the fire response makes sense, all the people gone plane still not on fire and still no firetrucks on site... then next you see billowing smoking and burnt out?
and at 18:50 the kid's response is TOTALLY inconsistent with the MILE AWAY shot, of the crash landing... it may have been a harrowing crash, but the the hollywood explosion they are describing... and the closest in 63 posts is... ah shucks, the media can't be blamed, don't bother to listen to that, just because it doesn't make sense... don't worry about that... ????????????

again I would say the media FOR SOME REASON have been "told what to say" and if there are discrepancies it begs the question WHY?

and the closest I can come to right now, if MONEY has anything to do with this, is insurance liability...
thus the distortion in the media and thus why I am still glad this guy posted and asked these questions it may not be a huge scandal but someone is misrepresenting something about this and it stinks as far as that MILE AWAY camera angle... I guess that guy isn't considered THE WITNESS.

"23:00 it's all a fabrication for your stupid brainwashed mind..." Someone is doing something diabolical here for some purpose
So I still say it deserves notice....

Thanks hip, and don't lose yourself too far in to that dumbed down stuff, it can be addictive I heard! but we each choose our own poison...

[ThePythonicCow]

Perhaps if your thread was titled something more in line with, "Is San Fran Asiana Flight 214 Another MSM Hoax?" with emphasis on the question I wouldn't be typing this now.



"Is San Fran Asiana Flight 214 Another MSM Hoax?"

Paul...? :P


And if Paul wants to change the Title to Is San Fran Asiana Flight 214 Another MSM Hoax? I am open to it ... no problem...
Alright, so changed :).

[bennycog]

I do agree with the video op about the tracks of the plane and how casual people were getting off of the plane before it was ripped holes in the top by what must have been a tremendous fire..( after they got out and walked casually off with their bags.. Just getting off a plane with your bag after an incident like that would either mean you are seriously in shock or that attached to your material; things in life that you would consider suicide to get back..

I do see a lot of descrepancies.. but what do not see, and it is really annoying.. I do not see a timeline of events.. it is really hard to piece that together..

Grass seems longer and shorter.. reports of fire crew there within 90 seconds and others in a lot longer..
Markings a bit different.. material including foam in mismatch..

I need to win the lottery so I can get straight to scenes like this and analyse the scene myself because it is so hard to trust anything on this from anyones mouth...

And then there is the thought of distraction as there always is for people who see the world in the way that we do.. You could put so much time and effort into this and miss sooo much for doing it..
But it would also be great to see a non msm full coverage and nice flow through of events to put this thing together..

[ThePythonicCow]

I do agree with the video op about the tracks of the plane and how casula people were getting off of the plane before it was rippied holes in the top by what must have been a tremendous fire..( after they got out and walked casually off with their bags.. Just getting off a plane with your bag after an incident like that would either mean you are seriously in shock or that attached to your material; things in life that you would consider suicide to get back..
Eh - if I was in the seat next to the open door, I'd move out ... fast ... to save my *ss and as many of those behind me as I could.

But if I was further back, I'd be waiting for those ahead of me, and might as well grab a bag if it's handy.

[bennycog]

Yes that might be true Paul.. but I hope most people would consider helping others out before getting their bags.. And I would hope that all doors that are marked emergency exit to be opened.. especially when the plane is going to go from having a roof to having only half a roof..

[ThePythonicCow]

Yes that might be true Paul.. but I hope most people would consider helping others out before getting their bags.. And I would hope that all doors that are marked emergency exit to be opened.. especially when the plane is going to go from having a roof to having only half a roof..

Sure, if part way to the door, I saw a passenger that needed help to get out, I'd drop the bag and lend a hand.

Not all emergency exits were opened for reasons stated earlier in this thread - trained crew avoid the exits at greatest risk in a fire.

[bennycog]

I just certainly could not make decent conclusion to this.. it seems either way you try to go there are one halting the other..
But as soon as you try to come to a conclusion by trying to piece it together something else pops up more bizzare..

[sigma6]

that whole roof ... non roof does not add up... I really think now that all the "shuffle" is on some deal... organized crime is deeply penetrated into every faucet of business and government today... I can't help but think a "deal was made" We used to do something similar in a rental store, if we picked up something that looked so trashed or "infested" furniture. One of the senior guys would make a call to the manager. The manager would make a call to 'trash it or not' If he did I was then told to rip apart the furniture and dump it... so they could record it as written off.
So this happens at every level right up to the World Trade Centre, the same people who control the banks, control the government, control the corporations... I am thinking they might have been given the "go ahead" to "trash" that airplane. Who wants fly in the crashed 777 that was re-fitted... And maybe they do want to dump some of the first builts if there are known problems, so unlike the Titanic, (which is the same thing again) it wasn't necessarily a switch around but some funny business might have went down...

there are all kinds of neat things that can happen when there are millions of dollars "circulating" and people have the opportunity to 'talk' behind closed doors...

Lord knows, in my city you can't separate what is government from what is crime. The "street" criminals are just the patsy's and a cover for the 'real' criminals. The criminals look up to and admire the police, because 1) they don't have a choice and 2) they are seen as the superior criminals, the real operators with power like a 'made' man in the mob. So I have learned early on NOTHING is what it seems... and I have seen some pretty strange things in this city... considered the "burial" place of Jimmy Hoffa even (hahah)

It has also been called "Greek Lightning" mind you that could just be local to this area. I am sure every area has a different name in NY I guess it would be called Jewish lightning or (Zionist lightning?) ;o

[Healthy Skeptic]

The post by indigopete (Post #61) was 'spot on' IMO.
We should wait for the NTSB accident report before 'passing judgement' or coming to 'conspiracy' conclusions.
Anyone who views 'Mayday' (a.k.a 'Air Crash Investigation') on cable TV, will realise that they do very thorough, unbiased, non-politically influenced
investigations into Aircraft Accidents.
Until then people can 'speculate' all they want.
Love, HS

[DeDukshyn]

http://crush.flightaware.com/~dbaker/AAR.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOg6uXWCQAEHJlB.png:large
Looking at these two photos:

The grass in the first one is not three feet (as the video in the opening post said) but more like three inches.
The grass or ground above the lime green fire truck in the second image appears to have similar tire marks as the grass in the first image, and similar coloring (allowing for the darker image.)
The pavement that cuts across the foreground of the first image may or may not be in the part of the second image that obscures the ground with the fire truck and some sort of white stuff (the foam?)

In sum, I don't see unambiguous differences that force me to conclude that these are images of different planes or on different days (much less different years, as the video in the opening post said).

To add to this Paul, you can see the paved road just off to the right of the firetruck -- all the road to the left of the truck has been "foamed"

[indigopete]

Here's a computer animation of the crash...http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2013/07/11/animation-re-creates-saturdays-sfo-crash/

[bennycog]

How long does the foam stick around for do you think dedukshyn?
I know that the fire is still active beneath the foam until the oxygen is depleted..
and wind can blow the foam out of place and the fire reignites if it is hot enough..

[Prodigal Son]

The plane was approaching too slowly and virtually stalled on the runway - pilot(s) error (and that was at approx 125 kts at impact - the recommended approach speed is 137 kts). Fire broke out after the impact (nothing unusual there - I recommend you look at the ramains of the China Airlines 737 that caught fire from overheated brakes at Okinawa several years ago after it had PARKED).
And yes, I am a pilot for your LEARN-ED information. You... and the idiot who made this video, are talking complete rubbish.

Do the press/MSM exaggerate? Scramble their facts? YES! No argument. This was an unfortunate accident - nothing more, nothing less. Believe what you want :)

Have you watched the video in the OP? Have you seen the footage of this "crash"? It exploded into a fireball as it was cartwheeling down the runway. NOBODY should have walked away from that thing.

I was refraining from commenting on this thread but the utter obnoxiousness of some of the posters attacking this thread made me watch it. Yet another MSM story that stinks to high heaven. Add me to the list of people who can clearly see a pattern here in the MSM. TV fakery and crisis actors. But they are not very good actors. More like human props. That scene should have been chaotic.

The only thing that has me scratching my head is why none of these losers involved in these things ever blow the whistle. That part in the video with the cops standing behind the guy being interviewed and waiting for him to finish his lines before they whisked him away sealed it for me.

I didn't think Avalon had trolls and shills, but this thread has changed my opinion about that.

[Cristian]

This thread reached the usual logic and common sense vs new age conspiracy mindset . This is a HUGE problem for almost all important threads on this forum. The fact that KiwiElf , who has real knowledge and expertise in this area is considered a troll ....says a lot.

Aside from the fact that there is no real evidence to call this a hoax , there is also a lack of motive .

We are constantly hitting a brick wall with this kind of threads - when some users already KNOW - what others are really trying to investigate and figure out.

[Fred Steeves]

We should wait for the NTSB accident report before 'passing judgement' or coming to 'conspiracy' conclusions.


Unfortunately, I really can't trust the NTSB's report any more than the "911 Report". Remember TWA Flight 800?

One other thing, has anyone heard about this? Don't know about ya'll, but I find it very interesting.


[UPDATED] The pilot at the controls of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 (http://atwonline.com/safety/asiana-flight-214-pilots-actions-scrutinized) has reported seeing a blinding flash of light during the Boeing 777-200ER’s descent into San Francisco International Airport (SFO). It is unclear what factor, if any, the reported flash of light played in the July 6 crash-landing that killed two passengers.
http://atwonline.com/safety/pilot-controls-asiana-777-reported-seeing-flash-light-500-feet

[Prodigal Son]

This thread reached the usual logic and common sense vs new age conspiracy mindset . This is a HUGE problem for almost all important threads on this forum. The fact that KiwiElf , who has real knowledge and expertise in this area is considered a troll ....says a lot.

Aside from the fact that there is no real evidence to call this a hoax , there is also a lack of motive .

We are constantly hitting a brick wall with this kind of threads - when some users already KNOW - what others are really trying to investigate and figure out.

I see you've watched the video also. Why don't you watch it and get back to us?

I have flown planes myself. What does flying experience have to do with this? Yes, it would appear that the plane approached the runway way too slow and stalled. Nobody is disputing that happens. But what we are seeing on the MSM footage once again flies in the face of reality for several reasons, not the least of which is changing landscape and different planes. Anybody who doesn't question that is fast asleep and shouldn't be commenting on this thread..

[Another1]

~ I found a nice photo spread here (http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/06/us/california-asiana-accident-history) only way I can explain last photo is if them people casually leaving the plane with luggage had no clue about the inferno brewing neath their feet.


FWIW: Not to infer that this happened here with the plane crash, but sometimes when a media presentation is being prepared there's a call to the back room to, "Get me some file footage on blah blah blah." - the person playing gopher doesn't have all the details and could through ignorance toss in something that does not fit.

[Cristian]

I've seen the video. In my opinion there is no real proof of changing planes or landscapes in OP's video.



I see you've watched the video also. Why don't you watch it and get back to us?

[Prodigal Son]

I've seen the video. In my opinion there is no real proof of changing planes or landscapes in OP's video.



I see you've watched the video also. Why don't you watch it and get back to us?


In a genuine debate opinions are accompanied by refutations. Opinions can't remove acres of grass down to their roots or change the doors on aircraft. Thanks for your response, I think :)

[Cristian]

nobody changed the doors ...

The yellow on the doors :

http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/tdy-130708-asiana-crash-01.jpg


...is nothing but some sort of device BEHIND the doors that was either obscured by the inflatable slides , or for some reason that device was lowered down after some time. Check this out:

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/51dca26feab8ea4d0d00000f/heres-what-happened-in-the-cockpit-of-asiana-flight-214-moments-before-it-crashed.jpg






The grass "problem" is just an ilusion caused by aerial photos vs ground photos perception.

[sigma6]

We should wait for the NTSB accident report before 'passing judgement' or coming to 'conspiracy' conclusions.


Unfortunately, I really can't trust the NTSB's report any more than the "911 Report". Remember TWA Flight 800?

One other thing, has anyone heard about this? Don't know about ya'll, but I find it very interesting.


[UPDATED] The pilot at the controls of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 (http://atwonline.com/safety/asiana-flight-214-pilots-actions-scrutinized) has reported seeing a blinding flash of light during the Boeing 777-200ER’s descent into San Francisco International Airport (SFO). It is unclear what factor, if any, the reported flash of light played in the July 6 crash-landing that killed two passengers.
http://atwonline.com/safety/pilot-controls-asiana-777-reported-seeing-flash-light-500-feet

Good find Steve, I think that is the first time anyone mentioned that... Goes to show there is always something more to look at... and that definitely deserves further investigation. I am sure we are not the only ones seeking more info. There will be still more to come.

[DeDukshyn]

How long does the foam stick around for do you think dedukshyn?
I know that the fire is still active beneath the foam until the oxygen is depleted..
and wind can blow the foam out of place and the fire reignites if it is hot enough..

I am not an expert in fire fighting foam, but I do know this foam is not the bubble bath variety and is relatively wind resistant. I also know that they would have used a class B foam for flammable liquids, which I assume is a bit sticky to keep post flame re-ignitions down. I also don't know how windy it was that day that the foam "should have" blown away.

looking at this pic, I'd say the stuff has some sticky qualities and is somewhat resistant to blowing in the breeze (or it wouldn't be useful at all)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Firefighters_spray_foam.jpg/250px-Firefighters_spray_foam.jpg

[DeDukshyn]

We are constantly hitting a brick wall with this kind of threads - when some users already KNOW - what others are really trying to investigate and figure out.

I KNOW all kinds of things that others spend vast time investigating. My choices are then, put them down and let everyone now how great and right I am without providing backup or evidence; find threads that interest me and devote my time there; or, help out with the investigation for all to see the inevitable conclusion that I already "knew" -- heck, since I am not always 100% right, I might even learn a thing a two - everyone wins except in scenario one where no one wins.

What Chinaski said a couple pages back is important, we DO need to question things, and to make that useful, thorough investigations are needed.

If I had a dollar every time I heard someone say they "KNOW" it was al Queda terrorists that conducted the entire operation of 9/11, I would be a rich man. The people who don't believe this have found an aweful lot of evidence, by sticking with the investigations. We still don't have all the answeres, but we have enough evidence to know the official story of 9/11 is almost a complete fabrication.

UPDATE:
Added bolding to the text in the wake of the post below, I guess he never read it ;) ;)

(Sorry Whiskey, but that was pretty funny :))

[Whiskey_Mystic]

This is one of the silliest threads that I have ever read on Avalon. People see what they want to see. What they need to see.

Those who would seek to control you know this and when the time comes, that will be your undoing. Many of you are just as locked into a belief system as those you claim to be "asleep".

[Mike]

This is one of the silliest threads that I have ever read on Avalon. People see what they want to see. What they need to see.

Those who would seek to control you know this and when the time comes, that will be your undoing. Many of you are just as locked into a belief system as those you claim to be "asleep".

Right. Just as you are seeing what you want to see right now: an opportunity to subtly declare your superiority with this snobby, pithy post.

Civility has just returned to the thread - why are you trying to spoil it? Soapbox posturing won't get you very far here. Join the debate constructively or exit stage left please.

[donk]

I work at the trauma hospital in San Francisco where many of the injured were taken. This was not a hoax. The plan did crash. Frankly, this entire thread is just plain silly.

Thanks.

What the thread might be demonstrating is that what is reported on the news for this accident, both words and images, is unreliable and inconsistent.

I'm only through page two...but Paul nails it. We should remove the emotionally charged word "hoax" from the conversation...and dig into the "tainted" information.

Planes, crashes, insurance, all that goes along with it...is big business, lots and lots of $$$....

The other thing is, it is not the crash itself...it is the media circus surrounding it, the information transmitted, and what's not being covered that's in question. It feels like a hoax cuz we don't get good information.

I believe in this case the motive (of any tainted information, and therefore cause for people to leap to "hoax") is most likely air-travel industry and insurance based...though the fact that it was covered by the MSM for hours on end uninterrupted is worthy of discussion as well--I mean, there are car accidents on interstates near me that have more casualities/injuries, and they might get a snippet, plane crashes are "sexy", and the media gobbles it up and puts out any piece of **** "news item" it can beat the other clowns to).

Anyone ever read Michael Crichton's novel "Airframe"?

[Prodigal Son]

Planes, crashes, insurance, all that goes along with it...is big business, lots and lots of $$$....


Not to mention geopolitical proxy wars going on between the US and China because of the Fed$$ corruption and trillions of $$$ in bonds they refuse to honor.

I wouldn't be surprised if this crash was the result of a bet between Bilderbergers on some golf course somewhere.

After they managed to crash Cory Lidle's plane on 10/11/6 (9/11/01 upside down) into the apartment of a woman suing Macy's after getting hit by a float in the Thanksgiving Parade I KNOW how these bastards think its all a game.... and human beings are the pawns.

[DeDukshyn]

Here's a computer animation of the crash...http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2013/07/11/animation-re-creates-saturdays-sfo-crash/

If this is accurate, something is definitely wrong beyond pilot skills ... look at the first video -- he's way too far right.

[Bill Ryan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhoAfgYhhs0

I agree that we should question everything, but we also have to be smart. Sometimes, there simply are just accidents (caused by human error or technical malfunction) -- our understanding of which can be further messed up by irresponsible or sloppy news reporting, in turn containing errors. No conspiracy is needed, sometimes, for things to get mighty confused.

On other occasions, the populace is grossly manipulated, lied to, and deceived -- viz. 9/11 and the Apollo landings (some of which did happen, but the footage was faked). There are many other examples.

To tell the difference, and put our attention where it may be best invested, we do have to be discriminating and intelligent.

No blame is attached to sigma6 for this. All questions are good ones. But sometimes we just have to say "Ooops, got that one a little wrong" -- and move on.

:)

[KiwiElf]

MSM footage and reporting frequently get their facts wrong when it comes to aviation-related incidents - nothing new there (and no, you don't have to be a pilot to have some knowledge of these events). I find it exasperating when some individuals - including the media - with little or no knowledge of this industry start "spouting" ill-informed opinions and speculations (not necessarily facts).

If certain persons have to lower themselves to the point of calling me and others "trolls" when we disagree with flawed reporting, then this site has become little more than a vehicle for opinions instead of facts. Those concerned may want to spread their research a bit further than a single, poorly made video from a delusional nobody.

Peace

[Knowrainknowrainbows!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhoAfgYhhs0

I agree that we should question everything, but we also have to be smart. Sometimes, there simply are just accidents (caused by human error or technical malfunction) -- our understanding of which can be further messed up by irresponsible or sloppy news reporting, in turn containing errors. No conspiracy is needed, sometimes, for things to get mighty confused.

On other occasions, the populace is grossly manipulated, lied to, and deceived -- viz. 9/11 and the Apollo landings (some of which did happen, but the footage was faked). There are many other examples.

To tell the difference, and put our attention where it may be best invested, we do have to be discriminating and intelligent.

No blame is attached to sigma6 for this. All questions are good ones. But sometimes we just have to say "Ooops, got that one a little wrong" -- and move on.

:)


I appreciate the diversity on this forum. Especially, I like open, honest discussion and value logical well-thought perspectives that demonstrate respect for other viewpoints even tho they conflict. Expertise at seeing what you know is one thing. Knowing what you see is another.
I have much to learn and I seek to know so I can understand.

We are purposely influenced and manipulated daily. I weary of the energy and time it requires to "be awake" much less, discern information....
No matter that I am weary. The "machine" (PTB) etc. continues. Spiritual armor intact, focus with highest intentions is the best I can do.
I am so grateful this "community" is here ... Thank you to all ... really.

But ... I do have one nagging question. And the computer animation didn't address it ...
How did that huge plane flip over, tear holes in it's top, and return on its belly without wing(s) torn off??? And I can't understand the low number of deaths with such an accident.

Okay, that's all ... I just seem to be "stuck" (obsessed) on that point.
:blink:

KRKR

[Hip Hipnotist]

Knowrainknowrainbows!

The simple answers to your questions are: the 777 didn't flip over. The holes were from the resulting fire.

Low number of deaths -- just luck.

That'll be $25 please. Cash. ;-)

[ThePythonicCow]

How did that huge plane flip over, tear holes in it's top, and return on its belly without wing(s) torn off???
... and the wings were not torn off because not that much excessive pressure was put on them.

The plane (apparently) lifted up at an angle and half flipped around with the tip of one wing on the ground, but not taking that much more than its normal load.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Low number of deaths -- just luck.
Well, not just luck. A combination of a strong air frame, passengers seat belted (even the two attendants in the tail, who went for a more violent ride when the tail ripped off), and well practiced evacuation procedures all helped as well.

[KiwiElf]

Most aircraft are made from aluminium alloy, which disintegrates in fire, unlike steel (try it with some scrap aluminium you may have at home). The resultant temperature of burning materials such as rubbers, textiles & plastics etc used in the cabin are sufficient enough to melt the aluminium of an aircraft cabin. Stored oxygen bottles mounted in the ceiling also explode and catch fire (these are the ones attached to oxygen masks that automatically pop down in depressurisation incidents). This can be seen in numerous other aircraft fires in the past. Add fuel to the mixture and it's more than enough to "melt" the cabin. The fuel in this case is Jet A1 (kerosene) - no-where near as explosive as petrol. Under normal circumstances, you could throw a lit match into kerosene and it will probably just go out. Not so with petrol.

Where the wings join the fuselage and under the floor is a large fuel tank - in addition to the ones in the actual wings - more than enough to create quite a fire. When the aircraft ran off the runway, the "fireball cloud" is not fire - it's mostly dirt and dust. When the engines severed, fuel will be running out of broken fuel lines. The engines themselves don't just stop - they keep running for a while as they spool down. If damaged, you've got impeller blades spinning at several thousand rpm, breaking, creating sparks and so on.

If the aircraft had smashed its wings - and their fuel tanks - then yes, a large explosion and fire may have resulted.

The speed and attitude (angle) of the crash often determine who survives or not. As the aircraft impacted basically nose up at a relatively slow speed and then belly flopped flat on the runway (pancaked is the term I believe),the aircraft is still generating enough lift to flip over as it did. As it spins, the outer accelerating wing acts a bit like a helicoptor blade, generating more lift than the pivoting point. Keep in mind that it's still moving at over 100 mph.

Most airplane crashes which occur at around their stalling speeds in a flat configuration very near or on the ground are usually survivable although not necessarily injury-free. Enormous shock waves and G-forces occur which often result in spinal injuries depending on the design of the seat and restraint devices. I would imagine that a large number of passengers suffered whiplash injuries from this one.

[Hip Hipnotist]

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Quote Posted by Hip Hipnotist:

Low number of deaths -- just luck.

By Paul:

Well, not just luck. A combination of a strong air frame, passengers seat belted (even the two attendants in the tail, who went for a more violent ride when the tail ripped off), and well practiced evacuation procedures all helped as well.

By Me:

So you had to go and complicate my simple answer with a well articulated and accurate response. ;-))))))))

[Prodigal Son]

But ... I do have one nagging question. And the computer animation didn't address it ...
How did that huge plane flip over, tear holes in it's top, and return on its belly without wing(s) torn off??? And I can't understand the low number of deaths with such an accident.
Well I don't blame you. That alleged crash was horrific. I'm sorry but in the real world no one is walking away from that. Those people did not look traumatized. It was a walk in the park for them.

Just like the Sandy Hook alleged victims parents. Not a tear rolls down anyone's face. There are no swollen, puffy eyes. Parker walks up to the mic laughing with an insidious smirk on his face.

The kid who was interviewed with the cops waiting in the wings looked like somebody reciting lines to collect a paycheck and be off on his merry way.

Have we not seen enough media shenanigans on this forum? Are we wrong for thinking that nothing in this god-forsaken world happens by accident? That these elite scum play with us just for kicks and giggles?

Has anyone explained what happened to all that foot-high grass?

Oh and I forgot to mention, they found Cory Lidle's passport at the base of the building.....

Pardon me for continuing this rant, but I didn't imagine I would ever be ridiculed on this forum for not believing what I see on television....

[ThePythonicCow]

In the immediate aftermath of an accident, some people will just tend to immediate affairs, in a bit of shock, or just focused by the adrenalin. That's how I typically respond, so I know the feeling.

Accidents do happen ... really.

Not everything reported on the news is a staged event. Sometimes things just go wrong (which isn't to say the reporting is accurate.)

One can't just denounce everything on the TV, or from almost any source, as being always wrong.

One actually has to examine the situation and evidence.

One telling aspect of this; so far at least I have heard no effort made to justify some new bit of tyranny using this accident.

As for the grass, see my Post #53 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?61052-Is-San-Fran-Asiana-Flight-214-Another-MSM-Hoax&p=700808&viewfull=1#post700808), above.

[Knowrainknowrainbows!]

Thank you to all for helping me understand ... For some reason I thought the plane had flipped over ... not so, the fire caused holes in top of craft.
Sensible, logical.
Just because we see people disembarking who are not hysterical doesn't mean some weren't. We only see what we're shown. Got it.

Thanks again for enlightening me :o

KRKR

[gripreaper]

the same people who control the banks, control the government, control the corporations... I am thinking they might have been given the "go ahead" to "trash" that airplane.

This is the most feasible explanation so far, in my mind, which would explain any forensic discrepancies which may show up, given the incompetence of MSM to spin a story without f'kin it up. Follow the money.

On another note, it is a curious phenomenon that it took four pages and 71 posts to get here. Since I have read sigma's posts for years and respect him and his incredible knowledge and passion for the truth, I did not watch the OP video before I read this thread up to this point. What drew me to this thread is how prolific it is on the "daily thread" opening page.

Now I feel like I'm rubbernecking it on the freeway, after sitting in traffic for two hours, looking at the accident on the other side of the freeway, to see why in the hell I just sat in traffic for two hours, and why did everyone have to slow down to take a look without any regard to the travelers behind them.

On the other hand, sigma is correct. Nothing is as it seems and we should question everything, based on our experience with how reality is twisted these days by the controllers. A plane did crash, that's evident. What happened after that and how it is spun? Not so much.

[bennycog]

And this goes to show how easily reporters just do what they are told..

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/07/13/11/45/us-news-station-tricked-into-reporting-racist-pilot-names

KTVU anchor Tori Campbell reported live on air that "Captain Sum Ting Wong, Wi Tu Lo, Ho Lee *** and Bang Ding Ow" were piloting the Asiana Boeing 777 when it crashed last weekend.

[Hip Hipnotist]

And this goes to show how easily reporters just do what they are told..

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/07/13/11/45/us-news-station-tricked-into-reporting-racist-pilot-names

KTVU anchor Tori Campbell reported live on air that "Captain Sum Ting Wong, Wi Tu Lo, Ho Lee *** and Bang Ding Ow" were piloting the Asiana Boeing 777 when it crashed last weekend.

If ever there was a fitting end to a wild and wooly thread -- that is it.

That sums it up better than anything posted on this thread.

( except, of course, for my posts ) ;-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

[Whiskey_Mystic]

This is one of the silliest threads that I have ever read on Avalon. People see what they want to see. What they need to see.

Those who would seek to control you know this and when the time comes, that will be your undoing. Many of you are just as locked into a belief system as those you claim to be "asleep".

Right. Just as you are seeing what you want to see right now: an opportunity to subtly declare your superiority with this snobby, pithy post.

Civility has just returned to the thread - why are you trying to spoil it? Soapbox posturing won't get you very far here. Join the debate constructively or exit stage left please.

Are you done?

[KiwiElf]

And this goes to show how easily reporters just do what they are told..

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/07/13/11/45/us-news-station-tricked-into-reporting-racist-pilot-names

KTVU anchor Tori Campbell reported live on air that "Captain Sum Ting Wong, Wi Tu Lo, Ho Lee *** and Bang Ding Ow" were piloting the Asiana Boeing 777 when it crashed last weekend.

LMAO - thank you - I needed that ;) Hahahaaaaaaaaa

[Another1]

Captain Sum Ting Wong ??? *LOL* And it took a week for someone to notice? wow

L1JYHNX8pdo

[DeDukshyn]

Captain Sum Ting Wong ??? *LOL* And it took a week for someone to notice? wow

L1JYHNX8pdo

Lolz ...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/12/ktvu-gaffe/2513971/

[cloud9]

OMG! I had not read this thread but I just saw this last page and the names on the video's screen are amazing"

Cap. Sum Ting Wong (Something wrong?)
Wi Tu lo (We too low?)
Ho Lee *** (Holy f**k?)
Bang Ding Ow (Bang as in big bang, ding ding ding, oh?)

English is not my first language and I don't know slang. Can somebody add to the last "name" ? It would be helpful is somebody know if this are real names in their languages but I don't think so...

[DeDukshyn]

OMG! I had not read this thread but I just saw this last page and the names on the video's screen are amazing"

Cap. Sum Ting Wong (Something wrong?)
Wi Tu lo (We too low?)
Ho Lee *** (Holy f**k?)
Bang Ding Ow (Bang as in big bang, ding ding ding, oh?)

English is not my first language and I don't know slang. Can somebody add to the last "name" ? It would be helpful is somebody know if this are real names in their languages but I don't think so...

Check the link I posted above ... it's the channel apologizing ;)

Excerpt:







KTVU Channel 2, a Fox affiliate in the San Francisco Bay Area, and the National Transportation Safety Board apologized on Friday for an on-air blunder by an anchorwoman that involved fake names that ridiculed the Asiana flight 214 pilots. An NTSB intern had confirmed the names for the station.

[ThePythonicCow]

Bang Ding Ow

Bang, as in banging a skillet with a hammer.
Ding, as in the sound of such banging, or the resulting dent in the skillet.
Ow, as in owie or ouch, for the pain one feels when the hammer bangs you, not a skillet.

[sigma6]

Captain Sum Ting Wong ??? *LOL* And it took a week for someone to notice? wow

L1JYHNX8pdo

Are you people serious... How naive do you got to be to believe those are real names, that cannot be real and I dare anyone to prove it... How gullible and stupid to believe that... Have you ever had the feeling you have just been had, what a ship of fools...

WAKEY, WAKEY... you just got your wake up call....

Typical someone is playing on our Western arrogance and willingness to swallow pure crap by giving you a cheap joke and playing on your repressed but obviously present and still existing prejudice...

I think Prodigal nailed it, this IS someones idea of a joke... whoever is behind this just took it one step too far, but can you blame them, people are do numb, and yes that even includes the usual suspects on this site... how unbelievably arrogant to think that you just made a joke of foreign names that happen to sound exactly like something the 3 stooges would have come with... f***ing unbelievable...

give yourselves a round of applause...

[bennycog]

hey sigma.. we all knew accept for one poster cloud9, which said English is not the first language they speak.. We all knew that the names were made up..
The reason I originally posted the story was to show how reporters do not report anymore "mainstream ones". They just read regurgitate and rinse off to start again..
it was quite a good laugh though.. felt bad to laugh but could not help myself..

[sigma6]

Oh thanks, I thought I just woke up and and entered into the twilight zone... LOL...
You should be careful... you know there are people on this thread that are actually going to take you at face value...
I must have missed the qualifier. I was just breezin' through the posts. And noticed everyone's response was akin to the same one dimensional consensus as the earlier responses, only the reverse now, in full agreement!... (head scratch...)

This reminds of the jetfighter incident where the Chinese pilot crashed doing intimidating maneuvers on an American spy plane, wasn't his name Wong Wai or something like that... Art imitating life imitating art ... (thought he was top gun, or something...)

[KiwiElf]

I think at this juncture, that Bill's post #94 might be worth reading carefully... and then following his advice - outta here - have a great life :)

[sigma6]

Toodles! and thanks for your heartfelt well wishing... lol

But Bill's not an expert pilot! so I hope that doesn't disqualify him?... :confused:
The pictures and videos are still suspect...
absence of motivation, is not motivation to justify it's absence...
(and yes I just made that up on the spot... logical extension... )

And it is still questionable why all these photos would show grass, no grass, smoke blowing out the top, (while it is moving 100mph) but roof still intact, then burned out... (even though they got it sprayed down 3 MIN AFTER LANDING...) foam everywhere, foam magically disappeared... the only eye witness discredited before he is even interviewed...

Even if I was watching a movie, I personally couldn't suspend my disbelief this much... And it took far too many posts to get across the issue that it was not about whether a plane crashed or not (so much for carefully reading posts...) And I never saw so much "trash talk" and plain avoidance of dealing with specific details, but then there were little "cliques" playing off each other... unfortunately the numbers give significant evidence of something other then analytical discussion.

I am quite content that we still don't have the whole story. (airplane expert or not...) I'm an "expert" at marketing and analytical troubleshooting. Just the bias and spin on how the story was portrayed. Indicates some agenda regardless how subtle. Some people are more sensitive to these type of issues, others obviously aren't... Some people get a gestalt of events, and then work back through all the detail, to find what is 'causing it' others start looking at little details and need to piece them altogether, before they see any 'patterns'.

I went back to that link that Fred Steeves referenced... it blows a couple of naysayer arguments right out of the water... for one the whole "Korean Pilots aren't as good as "american" pilots" just vapourized In fact I will post it here, on that alone, but it is saying oh so much more...

It also suggests there is some kind of bias being put into motion... given how the information is being handled and presented to the public, this is third party confirmation for what I have being saying from get go, something that Max was obviously sensitive to as well...

(and I swear I didn't read the article until he presented it here!...)




investigation into the July 6 crash-landing of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) appears to be increasingly focused on the actions of the pilots, who didn’t realize the Boeing 777-200ER had slowed to a dangerously low speed until just seconds before impact.

According to information relayed by the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Asiana, Jeong-Min Lee was the pilot in command, sitting in the right seat and acting as an instructor to Gang-Guk Lee, a veteran pilot in the midst of transitioning to the 777 who was sitting in the left seat and controlling the aircraft. There was a relief pilot in the jump seat at the time of the accident, while the flight’s fourth pilot was in the passenger cabin when the 777 hit SFO’s sea wall.

Jeong-Min Lee and Gang-Guk Lee had handled the take off from Seoul Incheon International Airport and the initial segment of the flight, which lasted about 4 hours and 15 minutes, according to NTSB. They were relieved by the two other pilots, had a period of rest, and then returned to handle the last 1 hour and 30 minutes of the flight, including the landing at SFO.

Gang-Guk Lee told NTSB interviewers that he has accumulated a total of 9,700 hours of flight time in 19 years with Asiana. About 5,000 of those hours were as the pilot in command. He has flown the 737, 747 and, since 2005, served as an Airbus A320 captain. He was going through a familiarization training period on the 777, so far accumulating about 35 hours over 10 flights on the aircraft type. Asiana requires that pilots transitioning to the 777 accumulate 60 hours over 20 flights sitting next to an instructor pilot before being assigned to a permanent crew, NTSB said.

Gang-Guk Lee had also served as an Asiana ground-school instructor and simulator instructor for A320 and A321 pilots in training. Asiana said he had previously landed at SFO 29 times, but this was his first landing at the airport in a 777.

Jeong-Min Lee, paired with Gang-Guk Lee for the first time, is an Asiana 777 captain who was just recently made a 777 instructor pilot. This was his first trip as an instructor pilot, according to NTSB. Jeong-Min Lee told NTSB he has accumulated about 13,000 total flight hours, including 3,000 hours on the 777 and 10,000 hours as the pilot in command.

Jeong-Min Lee told investigators that he thought the auto-throttles were engaged and maintaining a speed of 137 knots as the 777 came in for a landing. However, seconds before the aircraft made impact, he realized it was going too slowly. Instead of staying at 137 knots, speed had dropped all the way to a low-point of 103 knots.

Gang-Guk Lee also realized the aircraft had slowed, and apparently pushed the throttles forward just before impact in a failed last-second attempt to perform a go-around.

Investigators will likely carefully examine the 777-200ER’s auto-throttle system, but NTSB chairman Deborah Hersman emphasized in remarks to reporters that the pilots should closely monitor aircraft speed even if auto-throttles are engaged. “The crew is required to maintain a safe aircraft,” she said. “They need to monitor. One of the very critical things that needs to be monitored on an approach to landing is speed.”

Hersman also responded to criticism from the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) union, which has said it is “stunned by the amount of detailed operational data” NTSB is releasing at such an early stage of the crash probe, fearing it will lead to “erroneous conclusions.”

I too am stunned by the early release of information that has the look and feel of trying to massage this event... There is some agenda, and it could very well revolve around insurance liability... A lot of this "information" could be used as context for manipulating public opinion and slanting the story before it reaches the courts... (this is just one example...)

[sigma6]

http://atwonline.com/safety/pilot-controls-asiana-777-reported-seeing-flash-light-500-feet

Fred's other link is even more incredible.... when you start to combine the contradictory photos and videos, the discrediting of the only eye witness. the fact that ground functions were shut down for "maintenance" (which is no excuse if they are typically used to assist in landing) the media spin that "doesn't really count because well, they're only media... so of course they don't really count... silly willy!!!" (sorry not buying that... ) They had no reason to mix in other photos.

Now we are looking at an atypical handling of the information and public release in the how the information is being collected and disseminated.

I am a bit of an "expert" in psychology (please ignore my subtle reference to any assumed self importance... I am just being facetious here...) But there is one thing that happens when you have as many hours of training as these guys. Many actions that you have learned become 'automatic', almost unconscious. There are pros and cons to this effect. One of the pros is anomalous event can be detected, anything out of ordinary, no matter how subtle, is more easily detectable... such as their "feeling" that something wasn't right at "4000 ft" Still they have no reason anything is suspect flying their brand spanking new 777, and it is only a "feeling" which means the instrumentation isn't telling them otherwise...
Then when they are at 500 feet, they get hit with a bright flash of light... the combination of the being too high at 4000, possibly compensating for that or at least that is 'operating' in the bias, then being hit with a flash of light, right at 500 ft, while their instrumentation is NOW NOT telling them they are now too low... in essence doing the opposite of what it was doing at 4000...

And I love the quote... just like the sole witness is discounted without gathering his eyewitness testimony, they immediately discount this guys blinding flash of light (WTH?)


It is unclear what factor, if any, the reported flash of light played in the July 6 crash-landing that killed two passengers. This is being stated after a 777 just crash landed ripping its tail off and skidding across the runway???


“We really don’t know what it could have been,” Hersman said during a press briefing in San Francisco. “We need to look into it. We need to understand what he is talking about.”

Wow isn't this the same pattern as the anomalous instrumentation. First it's dump all kinds of info into the public against standard policy creating huge public misperception, right down to playing on people's ignorance and prejudice. Heck if you can't make American's look superior, how about make Koreans look inferior. Hmmm, where have I seen this before? And now here she is holding back, withholding comment, playing it close to the chest!? Jockeying for public positioning. This sounds like politics, not sure? don't know? need to look? don't understand? my my, aren't we sounding just a wee tad non-committal there eh... No suspicions? (how can you? when you don't "understand") no opinion? (how can you, when you still have to "look into it"?) Sounds like Hersman is sure being careful holding back information now!!! ...


Again I swear I didn't see this stuff before Fred presented it... Max's video may not be 100% accurate but it is crystal clear that he doesn't consider what he is saying is a spoof. And anyone who would propose that must a have a low opinion of other people's intelligence. Max probably felt what I felt. All these little coincidences, and anomalies, they are getting more and more specific the more you look at them... All this points back to my original issue the "hoax" is some kind of spin on the information that is being presented to the public...





The pilot at the controls of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 has reported seeing a blinding flash of light during the Boeing 777-200ER’s descent into San Francisco International Airport (SFO). It is unclear what factor, if any, the reported flash of light played in the July 6 crash-landing that killed two passengers.

The detail about the flash of light comes as more information emerges about the aircraft’s descent into SFO and the immediate aftermath of the crash. US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) chairman Deborah Hersman said the pilot sitting in the left seat and controlling the aircraft, Gang-Guk Lee, reported seeing the flash of light when the aircraft was at about 500 feet, which was about [U]34 seconds before the 777’s main landing gear hit SFO’s sea wall.

“We really don’t know what it could have been,” Hersman said during a press briefing in San Francisco. “We need to look into it. We need to understand what he is talking about.”

She added Thursday that the pilot told investigators he wasn't sure what the bright light was and that it could have been a reflection of the sun. Gang-Guk Lee also told NTSB he did not think the light affected his vision.

While the pilots did not realize the aircraft had slowed to a dangerously low speed until just seconds before impact, there were signs during the descent that something was amiss, according to NTSB. Jeong-Min Lee, the pilot in command who was sitting in the right seat and acting as a 777 instructor to Gang-Guk Lee—a veteran pilot in the midst of transitioning to the aircraft type—has told investigators that the 777 was “slightly high when they passed 4,000 feet,” Hersman said.

Then at about 500 feet—the same time the pilot in control reported seeing the flash of light—Jeong-Min Lee “realized they were low,” Hersman said. However, it was only seconds before impact when the pilots realized the speed had fallen from the target speed of 137 knots to just 103 knots. The aircraft was attempting to land on SFO runway 28L.

Jeong-Min Lee has told investigators he thought the auto-throttles were engaged and maintaining speed. Hersman said NTSB has determined that “multiple autopilot modes and multiple auto-throttle modes” were engaged in the last two-and-a-half minutes of the flight. Investigators don’t know if this was intentional or inadvertent, she added.

Hersman said NTSB has interviewed six of Asiana Flight 214’s 12 flight attendants; five flight attendants remain hospitalized. According to Hersman, three flight attendants sitting at the rear of the 777 were ejected from the aircraft during the crash.

Once the aircraft came to a stop, evacuation did not immediately begin because the pilots in the cockpit were not aware the aircraft was on fire. Hersman said a flight attendant informed the pilots of the fire and the evacuation began.

According to Hersman, 90 seconds after the aircraft came to a stop, the first two doors were opened and passengers began evacuating down slides. Hersman said flight attendants and pilots were involved in fighting the fire as the evacuation took place.

The first emergency response vehicle arrived on the scene two minutes after the 777 came to a stop, according to Hersman. The first fire extinguishing agent was applied three minutes after the aircraft came to a stop.


Someone else was manipulating those instruments. It would be easy to aim a flash of light if you knew the time of day and angle of the plane coming in... they sensed the readings were off at 4000, compensated, exactly what I would do if I were an "expert" and want to "f***" someone up... they would compensate, then I would give a false reading on their compensation so they didn't realize they over compensated. The flash perfectly timed only needs to distract them for not more then 10 seconds, at that point they are at the point of no return... The couldn't anticipate it because their 10,000 + hours of training never included the possibility that some Western interests, along with all those billions of dollars of technology, have also built the technology the to "hijack" on board instrumentation. Western interests that have an axe to grind against Eastern economies will stoop at nothing to terrorize, maim or kill, to gain an upper hand. (and there is no denying they are desperate)

We have good evidence that 20,000 people were killed in Japan and for what, trying to promote free energy? getting rid of US influence? setting up a non US dollar trading account with China (June 1, 2102) How about Korea?, what is happening there right now? LOTS - economically, politically, LOTS going on there right now...


The first fire extinguishing agent was applied 3 min after the craft came to a stop... Yet the plane was a barbeque in the after photos... another contradiction.

[Prodigal Son]

Western interests that have an axe to grind against Eastern economies will stoop at nothing to terrorize, maim or kill, to gain an upper hand. (and there is no denying they are desperate)

We have good evidence that 20,000 people were killed in Japan and for what, trying to promote free energy? getting rid of US influence? setting up a non US dollar trading account with China (June 1, 2102) How about Korea?, what is happening there right now? LOTS - economically, politically, LOTS going on there right now...


And there you have nailed the motive everyone is looking for. I'm glad that at least one other person on this thread has a grasp on how these elite criminal murdering scum think and operate... and yes they are very desperate. I am quite sure from what you have presented that this event was manipulated by remote control. Usually the pilot and co-pilot have their own sets of controls and can override each other if one of them has a stroke or a heart attack. This would be especially true if the plane was on approach for landing. There is no way experienced pilots are going to let the airspeed drop to a ridiculously low 103 knots unless they had no control over it.

We ought to know by now that the more media attention an event gets, the more cause there is to look for the reasons why. There are much worse things that happen in this country every minute but this story just reeks of propaganda with an anti-Asian agenda.

[Bill Ryan]

-------

Video of the plane as it crashed:

http://us.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/asiana-crash-witness/index.html

[Sidney]

The interview with the fellow that filmed it was telling. He was genuinely choked up, and I don't think he is lying at all. It must have been pretty surreal to have filmed that.

[sigma6]

I don't think anyone on board that flight was supposed to survive, if they had been say, 25 feet lower or hit the embankment any farther up the plane body it could have tore the plane in half. I don't believe the Korean pilots were "asleep at the wheel" or somehow inferior to any other pilots. I have no doubt the training standards are universally well controlled. I believe that their combined 50,000 hours+ flying time might in fact have averted a major disaster and SAVED the lives of 305 souls on board against a peculiar combination of events that would be tantamount to the “Kobiashi Maru” Test. How do you train and plan for another intelligence taking over your instrumentation?

Something similar happened when IBM played against Kasperov, when he was soundly trouncing the computer. He then said he detected a change like someone else was now playing. It was no longer the same “machine” That was and is a huge under rated scandal… (check it out) Again billions were on the line for IBM… (exactly like what they are for Boeing right now...) and again completely under reported and the machine/equipment was spirited away refusing further analysis by independent third parties. (Kasperov should have at least got a huge kickback for that... had he only known the wider game at hand.)

I find it odd that the MSM is creating a MEDIA VACUUM around the possiblitly that these guys may be heroes and AVERTED a major disaster in the face of insurmountable odds. And no wonder they reacted so fast in the media. Someone immediately jumped into preemptive damage control mode which would explain the bizarre media spin. This also gives away the pre-meditation involved. Hoooowweeee, can you smell that?

It may only have been BECAUSE of their years of training that they picked up on subtle anomalies the instrumentation WASN’T showing. It had to be THEIR OWN SENSE and obviously not the instrumentation that was telling them right at the most critical moments of the entire flight that they were looking at completely misleading information. Given this (Kobiashi Maru Test) they passed with flying colours in my books. Who would be able to survive someone knowingly high jacking your instrumentation under those real life conditions??

Is this possible? Auto piloting and therefore remote control is totally within the cards… If this should get out to the mainstream media, that would be totally devastating to Boeing which is a part of the clearly by now identified CRIMINALLY SYNDICATED GOVERNMENT MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. And I am sure the technology has greatly improved since 911, wouldn’t you agree?

I would be dumping shares of Boeing until they cough up the remote control computer electronics technology, or else other countries will have to develop their own research and reverse engineer it for themselves and that could take years, stalling Boeing sales at a very critical market window (Big OUCH here) Boeing has put themselves in a potentially compromising position. Maybe Iran might be the best source for that research outside of the manufacturers themselves…

In fact I have no doubt that the pilots may very well have figured some of this out by now and are going to be mind controlled and intimidated into blaming themselves by the American authorities, while the Koreans will want to protect them and get a full debriefing of what happened from the PILOT’S POINT of VIEW…

[sigma6]

s_IPh1Gm50k

It was given authorization to be aired, by a by an NTSB official out of Washington....
pretty much consistent again with my reaction earlier without any of this context...
that is a cat out of the bag as far as I am concerned...

[woodshreder]

My close friend is a flight attendant for UAL. She just flew a international flight with a mutual friend of ours who also is a flight attendant for the same airline.He was on flight 885 SFO to Kix which was the flight holding as the asiana flight approached the runway His account of the horrific scene is hard to stomach ,let's just say there were less than whole bodys strewn on the runway after the dust had settled .In fact he said the shockwave actually moved them as the asiana plane past them. Here is a report filed by one of the officers on that UAL Flight holding just a couple hundred feet away from the crash. This was no hoax ,that's a fact

Eyewitness account of OZ 214 by a United 885 pilot

Posted by Dave on Mon Jul 8 15:21:17 2013

Sent: Mon, Jul 8, 2013 2:19 am Subject: FSAP from bunkie on UAL 885

On July 6, 2013 at approximately 1827Z I was the 747-400 relief F/O on flt 885, ID326/06 SFO-KIX. I was a witness to the Asiana Flt 214 accident. We had taxied to hold short of runway 28L at SFO on taxiway F, and were waiting to rectify a HAZMAT cargo issue as well as our final weights before we could run our before takeoff checklist and depart. As we waited on taxiway F heading East, just prior to the perpendicular holding area, all three pilots took notice of the Asiana 777 on short final. I noticed the aircraft looked low on glidepath and had a very high deck angle compared to what seemed "normal". I then noticed at the apparent descent rate and closure to the runway environment the aircraft looked as though it was going to impact the approach lights mounted on piers in the SF Bay. The aircraft made a fairly drastic looking pull up in the last few feet and it appeared and sounded as if they had applied maximum thrust. However the descent path they were on continued and the thrust applied didn't appear to come soon enough to prevent impact. The tail cone and empennage of the 777 impacted the bulkhead seawall and departed the airplane and the main landing gear sheared off instantly. This created a long debris field along the arrival end of 28L, mostly along the right side of 28L. We saw the fuselage, largely intact, slide down the runway and out of view of our cockpit. We heard much confusion and quick instructions from SFO Tower and a few moments later heard an aircraft go around over the runway 28 complex. We realized within a few moments that we were apparently unharmed so I got on the PA and instructed everyone to remain seated and that we were safe.

We all acknowledged if we had been located between Runways 28R and 28L on taxiway F we would have likely suffered damage to the right side aft section of our aircraft from the 777.

Approximately two minutes later I was looking out the left side cockpit windows and noticed movement on the right side of Runway 28L. Two survivors were stumbling but moving abeam the Runway "28L" marking on the North side of the runway. I saw one survivor stand up, walk a few feet, then appear to squat down. The other appeared to be a woman and was walking, then fell off to her side and remained on the ground until rescue personnel arrived. The Captain was on the radio and I told him to tell tower what I had seen, but I ended up taking the microphone instead of relaying through him. I told SFO tower that there appeared to be survivors on the right side of the runway and they needed to send assistance immediately. It seemed to take a very long time for vehicles and assistance to arrive for these victims. The survivors I saw were approximately 1000-1500' away from the fuselage and had apparently been ejected from the fuselage.

We made numerous PAs to the passengers telling them any information we had, which we acknowledged was going to change rapidly, and I left the cockpit to check on the flight attendants and the overall mood of the passengers, as I was the third pilot and not in a control seat. A couple of our flight attendants were shaken up but ALL were doing an outstanding and extremely professional job of handling the passenger's needs and providing calm comfort to them. One of the flight attendants contacted unaccompanied minors' parents to ensure them their children were safe and would be taken care of by our crew. Their demeanor and professionalism during this horrific event was noteworthy. I went to each cabin and spoke to the passengers asking if everyone was OK and if they needed any assistance, and gave them information personally, to include telling them what I saw from the cockpit. I also provided encouragement that we would be OK, we'd tell them everything we learn and to please relax and be patient and expect this is going to be a long wait. The passenger mood was concerned but generally calm. A few individuals were emotional as nearly every passenger on the left side of the aircraft saw the fuselage and debris field going over 100 knots past our aircraft only 300' away. By this point everyone had looked out the windows and could see the smoke plume from the 777. A number of passengers also noticed what I had seen with the survivors out near the end of 28L expressing concern that the rescue effort appeared slow for those individuals that had been separated from the airplane wreckage.

We ultimately had a tug come out and tow us back to the gate, doing a 3 point turn in the hold short area of 28L. We were towed to gate 101 where the passengers deplaned. Captain Jim Abel met us at the aircraft and gave us information he had and asked if we needed any assistance or hotel rooms for the evening. Captain Herlihy and F/O Ishikawa went to hotels and I went to my home an hour away in the East Ba

[sigma6]

This was no hoax ,that's a fact

you may have missed the last few posts, it has been adjusted somewhat, no one was ever denying the whether the plane crashed or not...

¤=[Post Update]=¤


-------
Video of the plane as it crashed:
http://us.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/asiana-crash-witness/index.html

Thanks Bill, honoured to have your posts, although I am still skeptical (Fred Haze?) Could he be related to Sum Ting Wong?
I couldn't exactly tell just how choked up he was, it was kinda hard to read through his reflective sunglasses. To be honest it sounded prepared. It certainly past the "politically correct" filter, can't argue that.

Is this the "Lone Witness" that the senior official was dismissing straight away?... and if so why? I didn't hear anything this guy say of significance that would require anyone, let alone a senior official to be "dismissive"... Another ambiguity. Is he or isn't he the original "lone witness" referenced in the initial interview with the reporter? (or are there two lone witnesses?) As they never mentioned the lone witness having a video of the event… That was clearly not in the interview...

And btw, the whole issue this brings into focus also not discussed in the media, is that there are next to no casual witnesses! whatsoever It's all corporate controlled "official" witnesses, which can only mean a quantum leap in political maneuvering and with the possibility of totally being controlled by higher ups. Not inconsistent with my original "insurance liability" line of reasoning. This makes me EVEN MORE SKEPTICAL when it comes to this Government and the Controlled MSM... and I personally don't think he is the guy the reporter was making reference to in the initial interview... that interview can't be denied as both reporter and senior official had no issue about there being only "one" witness... So where is he? To be clear. NO WHERE did they say this was the original lone witness that the senior official was dismissing because "he couldn't possibly understand what he was seeing" ??? There is some 'suggestion' but that is left to interpretation.


On another front... Although Benjamin Fulford has not exactly come out saying it, but Japan and Asia seem to be trying to flush out Rockefeller controlled interests in their countries right now. Japan has paid the price, 20,000 of their own citizens and a huge influx of blood money oil purchases (for now...) and for what? wanting to be free of Banker controlled politicians sucking the life out of their economy? Isn't it odd that a country that, at the corporate manufacturing level designed and built a car that can create hydrogen on demand (a big ELITE NO,NO... as that violates the FIRST PRINCIPLE of "CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTION OF..." This vehicle has the potential to save them BILLIONS and TRILLIONS on oil purchases and environmental clean up (Kyoto agreement anyone?) of a natural resource they are completely devoid of (everyone is in debt and needs to pare down expenses right???) So they develop the technology, manufacture and build it at the corporate level. But decide not to introduce it into the market? but instead get wiped out by an artificially created tsunami, and end up buying even more oil, during their time of "crisis" ??? (bizarre)

And now according to Benjamin Fulford, Korea is up to bat. They are heavily controlled by Goldman Sachs/Rothshchilds... And are in danger of some kind of economic crash that would be a devastating blow to the Banksters. I wonder could they be doing it purposely? And if so would this airline incident maybe send a message? (lets face it, we know who the real terrorists are) There is also talk that was first talked about by Fulford that they are also in talks with North Korea. This is historic and will change the economic landscape.


Also I think it will come out that the technology to control these planes is totally in the realm of technological plausibility... And it has to be vastly more improved and sophisticated then it was in 911 back in 2001.

[gripreaper]

Somethings wrong, we're too low, holy F'k, ding-bang-ouch...

[sigma6]

MORE DEFINITIVE PROOF THEY WERE USING PHOTOS OF DIFFERENT PLANES


Damn. I was meaning to count the windows because they do change with different models... This means they created an entire model to recreate the exact same plane as the crash OR they burned the real crashed plane to look as the model... Then again this is just a plane with some Asian people and has nothing to do with real crash, also if the emergency vehicles arrived within 3 minutes to put out any potential fires, where are they??

Everyone who pointed out the discrepancies and unusual "lax" nature of the passengers, give yourself a pat on the back for being so observant. Because you were RIGHT. So the question remains why fake photos, and then make up a story about people taking their luggage instead of their kids to cover the discrepancy? Are they supposed to issue an apology and correct the mistake?


bJY0YVrsm84

[Bill Ryan]

-------

Please! I have a great respect for all your Avalon contributions (really). But you have to do your fieldwork.

Your windows anomaly question was a good one. It had me scratching my head for a moment, and then I did some searching.

I found this video of the exact same plane a little less than a year ago:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkG_QBxBkU

Crank it up to full 1080 definition and watch carefully.

Here are two screenshots:

http://projectavalon.net/Asiana_SFO_plane_crash_windows.gif

http://projectavalon.net/Asiana_SFO_plane_crash_windows_zoomed.gif


It was a good question, but it took me less than five minutes to answer it.

Would you please drop this silly subject? In a world where there are many genuine conspiracy realities, this was just a tragic accident -- honestly.

[Fred Steeves]

Damn. I was meaning to count the windows because they do change with different models...
bJY0YVrsm84

The window count was a good catch. Being a notorious counter of things in general, I'm a bit disappointed in myself for not noticing this. Who knows what really happened here, but "journalists" actually asking simple questions about something like that, or say that flash of light the one pilot reported, would be a great start in finding out.

Of course das ist verboten, leaving people like us to question amongst ourselves. Is it any mystery where/why wild speculation originates?

"The Big Mind F**k" runs vast and wide, and that's why I only latch on to these things for a certain period of time before releasing them. It's a matter of keeping one's sanity, and besides, there are bigger fish to fry in the long run. Much bigger...

[Fred Steeves]

Please! I have a great respect for all your Avalon contributions (really). But you have to do your fieldwork.

Your windows anomaly question was a good one. It had me scratching my head for a moment, and then I did some searching.


Well dayum Bill, seeing your examples left me scratching my head too for about 5 minutes, and right after I had posted. (LOL) I had added an edit to my post thanking you for clearing this matter up, but then decided last second to go do my own field work as you suggested.

What I quickly found muddied things up again. While you clearly displayed 4 windows on the front port side of the plane from a year ago, with one neatly covered up, it still doesn't explain why these following 2 shots show the plane at the crash site with 4 and 5 windows respectively.

Am I missing something here?

2206922070

[Bill Ryan]

Am I missing something here?

Yes: the window in question was clearly there, but from the inside was sealed by something that opened it right up in a fire that was intense enough to burn right through the metal of the roof.

It could have been an aluminum, plastic or fabric cover. It was thinner than the airframe, as you can see, and whatever it was, the fire destroyed it -- leaving the "open" window for all to see.

[DeDukshyn]

Am I missing something here?

Yes: the window in question was clearly there, but from the inside was sealed by something that opened it right up in a fire that was intense enough to burn right through the metal of the roof.

It could have been an aluminum, plastic or fabric cover. It was thinner than the airframe, as you can see, and whatever it was, the fire destroyed it -- leaving the "open" window for all to see.

By looking at the picture the window wasn't sealed from the inside because I cannot see any pane that I can see in all the other windows.

Take a closer look ..

http://projectavalon.net/Asiana_SFO_plane_crash_windows_zoomed.gif

That said, aluminum melts and burns at a low temp - if there was a punch-out in the hull there, and then an aluminum cover tacked into place, it could well be that that part broke off during the burning, or was weakened, and got pushed in via firefighting foam etc. as Bill said.

All possible, so I have yet to see any hard evidence that the photos / video was faked in any way ... but its still good to explore ;)

[sigma6]

I will respectfully bow out... many interesting points, and grateful for all contributions related to the specific topic matter. Can't say that I am completely without questions... I guess the important thing is to be grateful that 305 of 307 people survived and were able to walk away from a plane missing its entire tail section and doing a 180 spin while rearing up and almost balancing on one wing... That must have been quite an amazing experience. And they still managed to file out with hardly any assistance, and further still be able to take their luggage before the plane incinerated its roof top... incredible good luck really, if you think about it, and if that was the case. And I still think those Pilots are to be commended, whatever happened in those last 5 minutes...


update: I'd also like to believe we are all wiser for the all the different insights brought forward. We live in a world of perception and individual experience. These threads give us some indication how wide and variable that can be at times. And yet paradoxically we are all one, spiritually and in the quantum sense. That is one koan I can honestly say I have yet to crack experientially, except by faith (and minor fleeting 'accentuated' experiences)

"11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Could we be misinterpreting this meaning by literalizing it?
Note, it doesn't say things that don't exist, but not seen.


'life pondering' music from Lynyrd Skynyrd
('cause' I like the way he spells his name)

Simple Man
sMmTkKz60W8

btw, he misquotes Schopenhauer:

"Money is human happiness in the abstract; he, then, who is no longer capable of enjoying human happiness in the concrete devotes himself utterly to money."

[ParakeetMGP]

I don't think this Accident was a Fake. What I question is during the flight across the Pacific Ocean and the Effects of H.A.A.R.P. on the Brains and Mental Alertness to the Pilots by the time they where trying to make the Approach with that of Landing the Airliner. Weather Control and Mind Control in the Atmosphere is what is going on in my mind could dense the Alerted Mindset of the Pilots (?) And the News Reporting is never consistent. It be the News trying to distort how this happen, but the Accident to me is real. (Meantime my computer can not play youtube VIDEOS. I can't watch them.)

[Flash]

To close this discussion:

Years ago, the most unreliable companies in the air were Korean. Nobody could see why they were having so many accidents, it was not the cleaning and taking care of the airplane (garage), it was not the instruments, it was not.... the list was long. The only thing left was the pilots, but they were all very well trained and experienced on average.

So the Korean behavior scientists looked at the pilots behavior in the cockpit closely. They discovered that, in the Korean culture, you cannot contradict a superior, you have to take for granted what he tells you otherwise there is consequences. Except that in the air, the copilot jobs was precisely to contradict his superior if necessary and at the minimum give his opinion.

They realized that most of the accidents, many deadly with commercial airplanes, were due to communication problems in the cockpits based to the cultural biases between superiors (flight captain) and subordinates (co pilots and engineer or stewardesses).

So Korean Airline decided to train all its personnel to brake their cultural communication behavior when in an airplane. The accidents rate reduced substantially afterward.

I bet anything that they have relax the communication training lately in order to cut costs or because someone deciding, and not being contradicted, did not know the story of Korean airliners.

A trainer in the plane, with a captain, who is the superior? Will the captain listen to someone below him in the hierarchy? You see...

Human error all along.

If you look at papers from the early nineties, you will find what I wrote, but I do not have direct quotation. This was utterly interesting to me because of my work at the time. That is why I remember.