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
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 »

D.Duck wrote:
My point here is to say that it was an Airbus A320 Flight 1549 in the Hudson.

So are your point that it wasn't?

Best
D.Duck
Dduck dear,

Your language is becoming more and more cryptic. A bit like Sullenberger's : "We're gonna be in the Hudson".
In fact, you say (and I'm just quoting you) : "It was an Airbus A320 Flight 1549 in the Hudson".

Perhaps your point is that they dropped an A320 from a barge and took pictures of it? Or do you mean it actually water-landed safely as per the official account? If you are to dodge all the issues expounded in this thread - I'll start thinking you are just another clown.
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,

All I am saying is that " An Airbus A320 Flight 1549 " was in the Hudson.

I am not 100% sure how it got there but I have a pretty good idea.


So what will it be Simon? Do you think Flight 1549 was in the Hudson?



Take it easy Pal, its not the end of the world.
D.Duck
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 »

D.Duck wrote:Simon,

All I am saying is that " An Airbus A320 Flight 1549 " was in the Hudson.
I am not 100% sure how it got there but I have a pretty good idea.
So what will it be Simon? Do you think Flight 1549 was in the Hudson?

Take it easy Pal, its not the end of the world.
D.Duck

D.Duck
If you have a pretty good idea you should spell it out. Now. Why play games? "What will it be" is not for you to say - since you have not started addressing the issue - nor do you bother addressing my many questions. Let's hear your take on this. Ok?

And just to make my point clearer - spelling it out - I believe this whole Flight 1549 affair was carried out for the benefit of:

- The airline industry involved in the 9/11 hoax
- The mainstream media involved in the 9/11 hoax
- The insurance companies involved in the 9/11 hoax
- The looming crowning of Obama - as Terence.drew shrewdly pointed out, to "raise the morale of the USA" and revive its faith in 'miracles'...
- Etc...

Now, check this out, Dduck: it's about hero Sullenberger meeting his loving, surviving passengers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3htyHs5DHM
As a musician with audio recording experience, you will not fail to notice that the audio track of this video (with Sully hugging his loving survivors) is totally manipulated or, in other words, phony. Then you'll learn that one of the Flight 1549 passengers was related to a 9/11 victim - and similar idiotic, bullshit propaganda. Then we have Sully interviewed by Kreepy Katie (Couric) wondering if he made "the best choices"(???)... Lastly, you'll be treated to Sully's wife reading the most touching 'fan letters' to her hero husband - who tearfully listens to it all.

This is the sort of stuff I call bullshit, Dduck. For you to use the same word regarding any of the plucky work upheld by this forum is simply not acceptable. You will have to show, in the next few days, that you are able to write something more substantial than cheap and vacuous one-liners - ending with a quack. This is my first warning to you Dduck, and you won't get another one. As you rightly say, this is not the End of the World.
antipodean
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am
Contact:

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

Unread post by antipodean »

Can someone do a Gerard Holmgren & see if flight 1549 actually took off that day.
That pic of the wing not over lapping the quay, reminded me of the pic of UA175's fuselage on top of WTC, where the fuselage over laps the rail on the steps making it out of perspective.
Image

It's good that the clean up part of flight 1549's crash looks to have used some form of photo manipulation/ fakery, because it proves that the whole event was stage managed at best.
Maybe TPTB got over confident & did a poor job with the clean up side of the operation.

I don't for one minute believe that a Pilot could land that plane in the Hudson.
It sort of reminds me of the London bus bombing, get all the major props & cast in place, then take some nice photos to sell the story.
There should be at least some reasonable quality footage of flight 1549's landing, but there's just a couple of fast travelling blurs put up by CNN, similar quality to AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

Faked video footage (that is at least comprehensible) is saved for the more special harder to prove occasions such as 9/11 & the moon landings.

The motive for flight 1549's landing IMHO, was simply to make people think that pilots flying large passenger aircraft can make impossible manoeuvres.

I also think that the numerology stuff is saved for the false flag Terrorist stuff, the Terrorists alleged liking for having events happen on dates with significance.
warriorhun
Member
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:26 pm

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

Unread post by warriorhun »

Dear D.Duck,

That an airplane fuselage to be put into the Hudson from a trailer to lend credibility and provide witnesses sounds logical at first, but on second thought, it does not.
I mean in economic depression, why would you waste working hours and manpower to pay for when you can achieve the same results for the price of electricity for your computers?
Why altering pictures of a floating fuselage, carried there costing petrol, when you can fake a CGI plane for free?
And that nobody in town saw? People heard the news after the event only. And for those who start thinking and say "I should have seen it", they can say "No, no, it was just right there after the next bend of the river", GPS data was not available (maybe it was released a week later when nobody remembered where they were at the time. Hell, I do not remember where I was yesterday evening!).

The only thing I do not get is the purpose of the fakery. Maybe it was just practice. I mean, you have to practice faking non-events on the people, so the big ones will glide through the brains of the population like a knife.
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 »

*

Hmm... a rather Interesting article from "BusinessInsider.com" - January 17, 2009: <_<
"Finally, Pictures Of Flight 1549 Landing On Hudson"
http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/f ... -on-hudson

"For two days, we've been amazed that no one seemed to have captured images of Flight 1549 as it descended and landed on the Hudson. We understand that it happened fast, but there must have been hundreds of thousands of security cameras, video cameras, and digital cameras capable of capturing some part of the descent and landing. Finally, the wait is over."
***************************
Dear Antipodean and Warriorhun, your points all seem graced with logic and reason. The problem with Dduck's take on this is: if they had a real airplane floating in the Hudson - why fake any pictures at all of its rescue and docking? Why double the workload? (btw, like Antipodean, I don't believe for a minute a wide-body airliner can glide for a sustained period of time - both engines ko - and then land that smoothly on water. But let's hope I am wrong about that...).
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 »

brianv wrote:Terence, what would happen if you landed a similar aircraft on a river in your Flight Simulator? Have you tried?

What is the average landing speed of an airplane 180mph?? How would you bring it to a speed slow enough to stop it being ripped apart on impact? Would you tail-end it and snap the rear end off - resulting in immediate sinking or do you do a head first and kill everyone with a 180 - 0 dead stop? How do you get it to zero speed to do a soft belly landing? Just curious as to the dynamics of such an occurence!
Good questions Brian.

Two firsts in aviation history and both within a Poc fada of eachother..what are the chances?

Flight 175 - the incredible transformation of a lumbering airliner into a fighter jet? From 24,000 feet to sea level in 4mins 40 secs and ending up 40 % over its' NEVER exceed speed' while still retaining the full control and balance to be able to fly into the WTC inch perfectly (first time airliner pilots too!)

to the American taxpayer - why did you allow hundreds of billions of your pretend money to be spent on the f22 fighter jet program when you could have just retro fitted some cheap and cheerful 767s with some bombs and toys for the boys! silly billies.

And then there is flight 1549.

Flight 1549 may be there to answer some of the questions posed by flight 175.

Yes! brilliant piloting skills exist day to day, just around the corner. The coolness of Sully kind of matches the ice man cometh fanaticism of the pilot terrorists.

Yes! A plane can impact something and be more or less 'intact' after. A sort of 'new and improved' kind of crash lol-omg-fakebook-vibe.

Big planes need at least 130-150 mph to stay up or they will stall and fall. There is one possible scenario for the possibility of this ditching.
If there was a huge storm in NY and a pilot could maneuver his craft to land into a very strong head wind (gale force) thus lowering his ground speed substantially and edging the plane down. This wasn't the case here.

The lovely curves of the airbus are all still intact after the impact as are all of it's constituent bits except for one engine. It looks like a group of boy scouts scraped it a little while they were washing it for bob a job.

Just a reminder. Anything hitting water at speed is f&*ked.

Mythbuster fire bullets into water.(these lads are not too good when it comes to major hoaxes unfort)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvSTuLIjRm8
Like the plane, the bullets enter the water at an angle of 20-30 degrees. It takes only 2-3 feet to retard the energy and stop them. The bullets are destroyed.

The starboard engine still attached to the wing of the plane seems ludicrous considering that the fan would have been still turning and ingesting water on impact adding to the sudden braking effects.

Looks good to me..perhaps hit by a robin but not a flock of geese.
Image
Compare to the port engine..
Image

which begs the question if the port engine took the brunt of the force of the impact how come the entire aircraft didnt pivot around this point and flip the aircraft over? Maybe taking a wing or two also?(where would the passengers stand then? o..there would be no survivors if there were no wings to stand on as you only last 4-5 mins in freezing water)
warriorhun
Member
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:26 pm

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

Unread post by warriorhun »

Dear simonshack,

both videos about the "Hudson plane landing" in the article you linked are un-available now, their youtube accounts are closed-I wonder why? :blink:

In general, I think in case of every human activity which involves more than one human, including media fakery too, we should remember: conspiracies which involve lots of intricate variables depending on each other's success and depending on sharp and time-critical co-operation between different peoples at different places, are prone to failure. It is always the most simple solution with the possibly least work-, time-, and cost-imput, the easiest one providing the highest possible impact achievable, is the one the perps should favour over all else-and therefore the one they are always choosing, I am sure.

We should not forget also, that they must test their fakery techniques on the population time-to-time, just to make sure it is working, test possible failure, test the limits how far they can get away with the most outrageous reality faking or altering. When some media fakery seems just un-explainable, maybe this is the explanation.
warriorhun
Member
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:26 pm

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

Unread post by warriorhun »

Dear All,

here is another released video of the Hudson plane landing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... mLKfRVU3qM

This is another good one, courtesy of Associated Press, AP, our provider of fake Giffords aftermath videos and pictures (but this time they must be real) <_< :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYV8C-3q ... detailpage

Remember: probably "thousands of witnesses saw and filmed" this event too, I mean in a big city... Amateur videos will resurface in time (wait patiently, they are faking them right now, do not worry):D

I am no video expert so I will leave analisys to you guys, but one thing I can not resist: the colour of the sky is very nice, I wonder where I have seen similar colours before (not in nature, of that I am sure of.)
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 »

simonshack wrote:The problem with Dduck's take on this is: if they had a real airplane floating in the Hudson - why fake any pictures at all of its rescue and docking?
The other problem of course is that none of us care in the slightest whether there was ever a real plane in the Hudson - unless it was the heroic Sullenberger plane with commercial passengers.

This thread is devoted to analyzing whether the media report of the Sullenberger plane is a manipulated fake story, just like this forum is devoted to analyzing 9/11 media fakery and other relevant media fakes. Since we've shown that all the images and videos of the Sullenberger plane floating in the river are fake, it makes no difference at all whether any other plane has ever been in the river.

We certainly don't have time for, or interest in, analyzing trash floating in rivers.
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 »

warriorhun wrote: here is another released video of the Hudson plane landing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... mLKfRVU3qM
It looks as if that video shows the Twin Towers in the distance - 8 years after they came down, in a geographically impossible place!
antipodean
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am
Contact:

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

Unread post by antipodean »

Since we've shown that all the images and videos of the Sullenberger plane floating in the river are fake, it makes no difference at all whether any other plane has ever been in the river.
I don't think ALL the images & videos are fake, & it does make some sort of difference if there was a plane in the river, because why go to all the trouble of putting a plane in the river, then faking all the photographs.
If you believe that there was a plane in the river, then you are saying that you believe SOME of the photos are legit in showing this.
warriorhun
Member
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:26 pm

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

Unread post by warriorhun »

Dear fbenario,

you say
It looks as if that video shows the Twin Towers in the distance - 8 years after they came down, in a geographically impossible place!
Yes, this is one thing that was bothering me, I wondered if anyone else will notice.
Maybe it is an insider joke by the fakers.
But it can be explained away, like: "no, no, these are just, you know, two towers in the distance, not even close to the WTC location."
I just wonder how much average twin towers grace the skyline in that area.
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 »

The transcript . Professional pilot Sullenberger and professional Air traffic controllers.


Moments later, at the time marked 2027:36 — that’s 3:37 p.m. in New York — Flight 1549 calls in this message:


“ah this is uh cactus fifteen thirty nine hit birds we lost thrust in both engines we’re turning back toward laguardia”Professinal wonder pilot Sully gets the number of his plane wrong 1539

“okay yea you need to return to laguardia turn left heading of uh two two zero”ATC - turn heading of 220

2027:49 L116 — tower stop your departures we got an emergency returning

2027:53 LGA — who is it

2027:54 L116 — it’s fifteen twenty nine he ah bird strike he lost all engines he lost the thrust in the engines he is returning immediatelyprofessional ATC gets number of plane wrong ..1529

2027:59 LGA — cactus fifteen twenty nine which enginesprofessional controller in tower gets the number of the plane wrong 1529 and asks inane question 'Which engines?

2028:01 L116 — he lost thrust in both engines he said

2028:03 LGA — got it

2028:05 L116 — cactus fifteen twenty nine if we can get it to you do you want to try land runway one-threeProfessional controller gets number of plane wrong again 1529

2028:11 AWE1549 — we’re unable we may end up in the hudson

2028:36 L116 — okay what do you need to land

2028:46 L116 — cactus fifteen forty nine runway four is available if you want to make left traffic to runway fourProfessional ATC finally turn pro and get the number of the plane correct. mentions runway 4 twice 44

2028:50 AWE1549 — I am not sure we can make any runway oh what’s over to our right anything in new jersey maybe teterboro

2028:55 L116 — okay yea off to your right side is teterboro airport

2029:02 L116 — do you want to try and go to teterboro

2029:03 AWE1549 — yes

2029:21 L116 — cactus fifteen twenty nine turn right two eight zero you can land runway one at teterboroProfessional ATC gets the number of the plane wrong again 1529

2029:25 AWE1549 — we can’t do it

2029:26 L116 — okay which runway would you like at teterboro

2029:28 AWE1549 — we’re gonna be in the hudson

2029:33 L116 — i’m sorry say again cactus Professional ATC finally gives up on the numbers and just calls the stricken aircraft 'cactus'

Jeez can you take anymore BS?


C.f. Betty ONG

A.A. Oper. Center: Which flight are you on?
Betty Ong: Flight 12 No Betty it's flight 11..popped a valium too many mid crisis?
A.A. Oper. Center: And what seat are you in?Inane questions begin
(Brief Silence)
A.A. Oper. Center: Ma'am are you there?
Betty Ong: Yes.
A.A. Oper. Center: What, what, what seat are you in?
(Brief Silence)
A.A. Oper. Center: Ma'am, what seat are you in?
Betty Ong: Well, we just left Boston, we're up in the air. We're supposed to go to L.A., and the cockpit's not answering their phone.
A.A. Oper. Center: What seat are you sitting in? What's the number of your seat?Whats the number...indeed
Zeron
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:21 am

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

Unread post by Zeron »

Check out these average joe :rolleyes: eyewitness accounts
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... the-crash/
David Watta, 42, a vice president at a travel media company, was headed home to New Jersey on the Weehawken Ferry as the plane went down. His ferry immediately changed course and headed toward the crash site. Shortly after it arrived, he said, passengers from the downed flight began to come aboard the ferry.
Amy Brightfield and Barbara Brody, both magazine editors, were on the 42nd floor an office building at Broadway at 50th. So smooth was the plane’s landing that Ms. Brody, facing the window, told Ms. Brightfield that a plane was going down in the river, but “maybe it’s supposed to be that way.”
Fulmer Duckworth, 41, who designs computer graphics for the Bank of America, was meeting with his boss on the 29th floor of the building at West 42nd Street and Sixth Avenue when he saw the plane hit the Hudson. “It made this huge, gigantic splash, and I actually thought it was a boat crash at first,” he said. “It didn’t occur to me that it was a plane in the water.”
Neil Lasher, 62, a consultant for Sony Music Publishing who lives in Gutenberg, N.J., saw the plane hit the water from his 27th-floor apartment. “I almost got that same choked-up feeling when I saw the second plane hit the tower, not anything like that at all, but the only similarity is seeing jets go down where they don’t belong. It’s heavy. You don’t know, it could’ve been tragic.”
Joyce Cordero, 34, associate producer with 60 Minutes, saw the incident from her office window. “We were able to see dozens of people on the wings,” she said. “I could see the plane floating for about 10 minutes as it went downstream. One of those things, you don’t expect to see in a lifetime.”
And note "Susan Obel's" 9/11 comment similar to "Neil Lasher's"
Susan Obel, who lives on 70th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, on the 20th floor, was talking to a friend when she saw a low-flying plane. “It almost was an eerie feeling, like 9/11, because there was a plane somewhere it wasn’t supposed to be.”
Post Reply