Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?

Anything on the news and elsewhere in the media with evidence of digital manipulation, bogus story-lines and propaganda
D.Duck
Banned
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?

Unread post by D.Duck »

Simon,
I hope to see this thread developing in a more thoughtful, intelligent and constructive way. Thanks to all.

Well, then you have to do the research in a intelligent and constructive way and stop posting BS pictures that in a sneaky way is trying to manipulate reality and make comments such as "missing doors, wrong windscreen and wings" cos that is just plain bullshit.

1, If you look at the right door in the picture posted by Surcouf a kid can see that the upper attachments are gone so the right door will live its own life and you can make the bottom turn up.

Now, none of you guys know how a A320 door is constructed but you act as if you do, stop that.

Here you can see the door hanging in one position and it can change position very easy cos the attachments are gone.

Image


Here is another one.

Image

Here is a A320 windscreen and wings.

Image


Now, since we are talking about Flight 1549, lets stay on topic and talk about that, so stop mixing it with some other bullshit and throw all the events in the same bowl.

Brian, you are going to regret that you called me a "troll".

I am saying " An Airbus A320 called Flight 1549 was in the Hudson".

Now, witch one of you boys say it wasn't????



Quack
D.Duck
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?

Unread post by brianv »

Duck, I didnt call you anything! If that's a threat. I'd like to hear more!!

Of course! This is why the trolls topic was started in the first place!!
D.Duck
Banned
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?

Unread post by D.Duck »

Brian,
DUCK FIND SOMEWHERE ELSE TO TROLL!
So you didn't say anything?

I am not threatening you and I never will, I am just proving you wrong that's all and I hate to do that.

One of the most important things when you scream "FAKE" is to be 100% sure cos if you are not, we all lose cred.

I dont want you or me or anyone else who has been in this for a very long time to lose cred just cos some idiot scream "FAKE" when he or she dont have the abillity figure out what really happened and why.

Best
D.Duck
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?

Unread post by brianv »

I used a verb - you say I used a noun, which is patently false!

Duck find somewhere else to fish! Did I just call you a fish?
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?

Unread post by simonshack »

Ok, Dduck

Since I know that you're a real person - having met you several times - I'll dedicate some time to this and take you through it step by step (although I believe all 3 Manhattan aircraft 2009 events were designed to waste all of our 9/11 fakery researchers' time - AND generate controversy such as what we have right here on this thread).

So here's one of the first pictures I found online right after the event. Very unfortunately, I did not save the source of it (my bad) - so you may say that I MYSELF photoshopped it... Anyway, I hope you can see that it is crassly photoshopped ? (if not - let's stop right here). I remember that, at the time, I discussed this image with Surcouf and he suggested it may be the work of ANY joker playing around with the real FLIGHT 1549 pictures:

Image

QUESTION 1 : Why would anyone mess around (immediately after the event) with the real pics of flight 1549 and put them online?
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?

Unread post by simonshack »

QUESTION 2: Since we are in fact discussing the legitimacy of the available pictures of FLIGHT1549, how would you explain these extreme chromatic differences (WHITE vs DARK GREY) between the wings/ailerons of the very same aircraft? The lighting? Some sort of photo-artifact? Please explain.

Image
And sorry, Dduck - but the righthand cockpit door (black arrows) is still a problem.
SmokingGunII
Member
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
Contact:

Re: Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?

Unread post by SmokingGunII »

Guys

I don't particurlarly like this media fakery part of the site. It encourages unfounded speculation (much of which is evident on this thread & 7/7) and detracts from the rather more concsise 9/11 research.

I haven't seen one thing in Surcouf's photos that would suggest that NO A320 ditched in the sea. I do see evidence of photoshopping the passengers and would ask anyone on board a plane that had just ditched in water, would you a) Walk onto a wing b) walk onto a wing and make you way to the tip.

I am completely with DD on this. Brian, I have a lot of respect for you but your photgraphic analysis is seriously flawed on here as it is on the 7/7 thread.

I don't want to start a war on here, but we must guard against foolish claims without undertaking the necessary research. We can all make mistakes with research, but we musn't compound those mistakes by calling names.

SG
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?

Unread post by simonshack »

Dearest SG,

I am asking some questions to Dduck now. Please do not interfere with this Q & A. Thanks.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?

Unread post by simonshack »

QUESTION 3: And this is kind of a repeat question - but no one has tackled it yet. How does this airliner, presumably full of luggage and cargo, keep afloat with only a few (slack) ropes attached to it? Maybe Heiwa can help answer this question since he's a shipping engineer. He would probably know - and be able to calculate - what it takes for a vessel to be unsinkable, in spite of it being flooded with water. Of course, the hollow wings (with their dumped fuel load) would help - but would that be enough to keep the plane so nicely afloat? :

Image
Terence.drew
Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?

Unread post by Terence.drew »

Just a few thoughts about this.

We are either looking at:
A. A depiction of an actual event and we are looking at the photos of that event.
B. A TV-like enactment of a plane ditching using actors etc. for some propaganda purpose or news ratings boost.
C. A digital scene of a plane ditching the likes of which we are familiar with, for some propaganda purpose etc..

If it is A. there are some issues with it. As Simon has pointed out there are a hundred people 'missing' from this depiction.
They must be inside the plane. Would you risk staying in a plane which was filling up with water or would you exit the plane and take your chances outside? I would prefer to at least be outside the craft blowing on my whistle and waving my little light around than be entombed in that watery aeronautical Euro terrine .
Like all these 'events' which get coverage on TV it is useful to look at the numbers. 155 passengers.. contains a multiple of '11'. In addition '77' people where injured. (c.f.The Chilean miners - 33 of them found on the 22nd August, 7/7 etc. ). If this depiction is fake one possible way to interpret the scene is the simple masonic imagery of emerging from the dark to the light. Here we have 55 people in the 'light' and the rest (us plebs!) in the 'dark' perhaps?

Simon has also mentioned the 'floating' issue. Once a plane fills with water it will sink. When a car hits the river it floats for a little while but will sink as water finds its way in.
An Airbus 320 has a 'ditching' switch http://www.flickr.com/photos/flightblogger/3204171049/in case of an emergency which closes valves underneath the craft to stop the inrush of water..

However from the above page, an observer notes the following:

"For the Airbus it closes all the external valves. Like the outflow valve (Used for regulating a/c pressure) and equipment colling inlet & outlet valves. Plus other things. In essence it seals the airplane. In a low altitude situation, these valves are normally open, allowing water to fill the lower section of an aircraft.

If you look at the pictures of the plane after it was pulled out, you could clearly see that the valves I listed are open. So in the short time (3.5 mins after they hit the birds) they had no time to finish the dual engine failure check list. And that switch is near the end.
"

Water in cabin = plane sinking. The quicker the inrush of water to the cabin, the quicker it will sink ,hence the logic of the ditching switch. Did water get into 1549? I am pretty sure you are supposed to evacuate a ditched aircraft from the front doors only as the plane will settle nose high in the water and you can see these doors clear the water line in the depiction. BUT the middle doors are open also! AND half submerged! Jet fuel is a little lighter than water and so will add a some small buoyancy to the craft,but there are loads of people standing on the wings! The cabin filled half up with water, and then decided to stop filling up with water and also then decided not to sink for some reason. This is the biggest problem with this whole scenario.

This is also ( as far as I am aware) the first time ever an aircraft with wing slung engines has successfully ditched into the drink.

Here is a passage from the wicked about this topic..

"While there have been several 'successful' (survivable) water landings by narrow-body and propeller-driven airliners, few commercial jets have ever touched down 'perfectly' on water. There has been a good deal of popular controversy over the efficiency of life vests and rafts. For example, Ralph Nader's Aviation Consumer Action Project had been quoted as saying that a wide body jet would “shatter like a raw egg dropped on pavement, killing most if not all passengers on impact, even in calm seas with well-trained pilots and good landing trajectories."[3]

Also, in December 2002, The Economist had quoted an expert as claiming that "No large airliner has ever made an emergency landing on water" in an article that goes on to charge, "So the life jackets ... have little purpose other than to make passengers feel better."[4][5] This idea was repeated in The Economist in September 2006 in an article which reported that "in the history of aviation the number of wide-bodied aircraft that have made successful landings on water is zero."[6]

Of note is the January 15, 2009, ditching of US Airways Flight 1549, an Airbus A320 narrow-body jet, which successfully ditched in the North River section of the Hudson River mid-river between Manhattan in New York City and Weehawken in New Jersey. All on board survived, showing that inflatable slide-rafts and life jackets can sometimes serve their purposes, although photographs from the incident show that very few passengers were wearing life jackets. After take-off from La Guardia, initial reports cite dual engine failure due to bird strikes at a low altitude. Pilot Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger was able to cross the Bronx in a slow turn to the south-west, pass over the George Washington Bridge and ditch the plane in the Hudson River. The left engine broke away on contact with the river.[7] All 155 passengers and crew survived with only one major injury and 77 minor injuries,[8][9] in part because the plane came to a halt adjacent to the passenger ferry route between NYC and New Jersey.
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing

Flight 1549, like flight 175 etc.. is another first in aviation history.

Here is an example of brilliant piloting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcRBuUR-N1I

A plane hitting water is another story though.
The plane is more or less intact. This is highly highly unlikely.

The engines still spooling around, once encountering water will ingest it and there is an immediate braking effect which (ok my guess here) would shear off the wings from the fuselage.


Compare-

Image
Image

Where is the wingtip device (winglet) gone in the lower photo at the end of the right wing?

THis is a wingtip device.

Image

mondo bizzaro ....Options B and C at very top of post are looking good IMO.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?

Unread post by simonshack »

*

But of course, Dduck...

You are free to believe in this shit too:
:rolleyes:
the Hijack and Crash of Ethiopia Flight 961
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob8nE4f2ZWc

And you're free to defend the reality of such a fable. It's all up to you - and your conscience. I thought you were aware of all of this shit - and of the social service we are doing here. Too bad. My trust was probably misplaced.
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?

Unread post by fbenario »

Terence.drew wrote:Image
What a strange picture.

Simon's picture above showed the plane attached by cables on its left side to the nearby riverbank. Yet this picture of the plane being lifted out looks to have the crane doing the lifting on the right side of the plane. Why would they bother floating the plane across the river before lifting it?

Also, in this picture the cables look too thin to lift a plane, and the whole lifting contraption doesn't appear to extend upwards beyond the edge of the photo, seeming to 'float' in the air.

The shadow directly beneath the plane seems to be an impossible shadow of this plane's outline, and also doesn't seem consistent with the very bright light coming from behind the plane (which should have more highly illuminated the shadow itself).

Finally, why is the plane's nose damaged? It didn't 'appear' to be landing nose first. If it was a 'picture-perfect' landing, the front of the plane would be the last part to touch down.
Surcouf_Revival
Banned
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:58 pm

Re: Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?

Unread post by Surcouf_Revival »

Terence.drew Re: Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?
by Terence.drew » February 3rd, 2011, 12:22 am

Where is the wingtip device (winglet) gone ...
Well ... there is not such a device (a winglet named "sharklet" by Airbus) on Airbus A 320 US1549 just because ... Airbus didn't even test them before end of 2008 !

Image


And there were ordinary wingtips on US 1549

Image




But going back on our subject, I like pretty much this picture with the left wing and its wingtip ... and where you can also hardly distinguish Lady Liberty in the back !

Image

And by the way ...it finally sank !! But not the raft :unsure: ?? "mondo bizzaro" :lol:

Anyone wants to debunk this one ?
Terence.drew
Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?

Unread post by Terence.drew »

Surcouf_Revival wrote:
Where is the wingtip device (winglet) gone ...

Well ... there is not such a device (a winglet named "sharklet" by Airbus) on Airbus A 320 US1549 just because ... Airbus didn't even test them before end of 2008 !

And there were ordinary wingtips on US 1549

Nice bit of digging Surcouf ) they certainly look the 'sharklet' variety in this photo:
Image

.. but on closer scrutiny the bottom of the ordinary winglet is missing on the starboard side..giving it thedents de la mere effect

Image

Why is it missing completely in this shot?
Image
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?

Unread post by simonshack »

If this is some kind of social game, Surcouf - merci ! C'est très relaxant !
Brings me back to my careless childhood days and those "Find-the-error" quizzes. Enjoying it! (But what's your point with all this, again?)

Image

I suppose New York gets REAL cold in January... Like "steel-bending" freezing cold ! :lol:

And btw: where are the "millions of New Yorkers" of 9/11 rhetoric fame? Well, I'm not saying that millions of curious bystanders should be seen leaning on that morphing railing, but how about say, 5 or 10 ?... :huh:
Post Reply