Is San Fran Asiana Flight 214 Another MSM Hoax?

[indigopete]

Posted by sigma6 (here)
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/H...730Z/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]

Posted by Hip Hipnotist (here)
"Is San Fran Asiana Flight 214 Another MSM Hoax?"

Paul...?

[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]

Posted by Hip Hipnotist (here)
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.

Posted by Cristian (here)

Posted by Hip Hipnotist (here)
"Is San Fran Asiana Flight 214 Another MSM Hoax?"

Paul...?

Posted by sigma6 (here)
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]

Posted by bennycog (here)
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]

Posted by bennycog (here)
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]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

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/...ays-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]

Posted by KiwiElf (here)
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? 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]

Posted by Healthy Skeptic (here)
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 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-co...light-500-feet