Transasia Flt 235 Crash In Taiwan Feb. 4th, Many aspects of this crash appear fakedT Options

[Ben]

This crash, caught on dashcam, contain many anomalies that look fake to me. For example the wing comes down on the bridge and, if you freeze the frame at that instant you see that 4 to 6 feet of the wing tip is missing where it appears to impact the road, yet there is no sign that the wing was deformed by this impact. Nor is there any apparent damage to the road surface from this impact, and no pieces of the missing 4 to 6 feet can be seen.

As I say, there are many more things wrong with these pictures, but let's start with this one. I hope to start a discussion about this very odd incident.

[NP1Mike]

This crash, caught on dashcam, contain many anomalies that look fake to me. For example the wing comes down on the bridge and, if you freeze the frame at that instant you see that 4 to 6 feet of the wing tip is missing where it appears to impact the road, yet there is no sign that the wing was deformed by this impact. Nor is there any apparent damage to the road surface from this impact, and no pieces of the missing 4 to 6 feet can be seen.

As I say, there are many more things wrong with these pictures, but let's start with this one. I hope to start a discussion about this very odd incident.

I'm really not sure what you are on about here.

I've watched the wing impact the van traveling on the road, in detail several times and everything checks out there.
The wing clips the front of the van which then swerves to the right of the road. Shortly after the driver gets out of his van to inspect the damage. He came inches from losing his life.

As for the rest, what were you expecting?

[Truthissweet]

This crash, caught on dashcam, contain many anomalies that look fake to me. For example the wing comes down on the bridge and, if you freeze the frame at that instant you see that 4 to 6 feet of the wing tip is missing where it appears to impact the road, yet there is no sign that the wing was deformed by this impact. Nor is there any apparent damage to the road surface from this impact, and no pieces of the missing 4 to 6 feet can be seen.

As I say, there are many more things wrong with these pictures, but let's start with this one. I hope to start a discussion about this very odd incident.

Maybe the Taiwan Pentagon is off to the right......

This post has been edited by Truthissweet: Feb 19 2015, 01:51 PM

[Truthissweet]

posted twice.

This post has been edited by Truthissweet: Feb 19 2015, 01:48 PM

[Ben]

No, I don't agree that everything checks out. The wing is completely past the taxi before the taxi shows signs of having been hit (smoke and swerving). But the larger problem is the wing itself. How in the heck could 4 to six feet of wing be scraped off from impacting the roadway, and yet there are no pieces of wing flying around the point of impact and no effect on the rest of the wing! I think an impact like that would have torn the whole wing off, or at the very least done some bending and crumpling on the rest of the wing.

[paranoia]

4 to 6 feet of the wing tip is missing where it appears to impact the road, yet there is no sign that the wing was deformed by this impact. Nor is there any apparent damage to the road surface from this impact, and no pieces of the missing 4 to 6 feet can be seen...I think an impact like that would have torn the whole wing off, or at the very least done some bending and crumpling on the rest of the wing.

the plane in question was an ATR 72:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransAsia_Airways_Flight_235
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATR_72-600
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATR_(aircraft_manufacturer)


about that plane:
http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/ai...ort-haul-market (from 11/1/2014)

ATR, an Alenia Aermacchi SpA (Venegono Superiore, Italy) and Airbus Group joint venture based in Toulouse, is rapidly gaining market share in the 50- to 70-seat range with its regional turboprops and claimed 61 percent of the sub-90 seat market at the end of 2012 (see Figs. 4 and 5). Filippo Bagnato, ATR CEO, foresees growth in the regional market due mainly to the development of new regional networks in Southeast Asia and Latin America. Growth will be augmented as aging turboprop fleets are replaced in Europe and the U.S. “We estimate a global demand for some 3,300 turboprops within the next two decades,” Bagnato says.

ATR began using composites in the 1980s for wing flaps, ailerons and some fairing panels on its original ATR42, and designed and produced a full composite outer wingbox for its 1980s-version of the ATR72. Typically, the company uses Kevlar aramid fibers for secondary structures, rather than fiberglass, and still uses Kevlar for ATR42 and ATR72 fuselage fairings, tail cones, trailing edge panels and other airframe elements.

With the entry of the ­ATR72 into service in 1988, the company began using carbon composites for the outer wingbox. “Until a few years ago, this part was one of the largest composite parts on a commercial aircraft,” Bagnato says. Today, ATR reduces weight on its latest ATR72 model by using carbon composites to build the primary structural outer wingbox skin, spars and internal ribs, and vertical and horizontal stabilizers, as well as secondary elements, including the nacelle fairing, engine cowl and flight controls (wing flaps and aileron, and empennage rudder and elevator.)

link for above pic: http://d2n4wb9orp1vta.cloudfront.net/resou...ft_Pg32Fig5.jpg
also see: http://d2n4wb9orp1vta.cloudfront.net/resou...ites_ATR42.jpeg

-carbon composites shatter or break, not bend. since the plane's wing was mostly comprised of carbon composites and not metal, it broke into many small pieces, tearing/separating from the parts that did not impact solid objects. but the bigger question i would ask you ben - is why? why the need to fake this particular crash? who benefits? is there an angle? why would some entity go through the trouble of faking video of this crash?

[Ben]

I don't know why some entity would fake this video but, before speculating about motive, I think it is important to investigate what happened here. That is interesting that the wings of this plane were constructed of carbon fiber, but there still should be some bits and pieces of the missing wing end visible. also there is no apparent damage to the road at all. The only damage to the structure is to the low metal wall and railing which is sliced right through. It appears to me that a small explosive was detonated to make that cut in the wall, and that a CGI of the plane wing was added later.

One also needs to look at the video of the "rescue" in the river. The group standing next to the plane in waist-deep water are completely calm, still dry and not exhibiting any injuries other than nosebleeds. Look at the boy in his father's arms. Does he look like he's just been through a deadly plane crash? The "survivors" look completely unfazed, as if they are waiting for the next bus. It looks like a rescue drill.

[NP1Mike]

I don't know why some entity would fake this video but, before speculating about motive, I think it is important to investigate what happened here. That is interesting that the wings of this plane were constructed of carbon fiber, but there still should be some bits and pieces of the missing wing end visible. also there is no apparent damage to the road at all. The only damage to the structure is to the low metal wall and railing which is sliced right through. It appears to me that a small explosive was detonated to make that cut in the wall, and that a CGI of the plane wing was added later.

Ben I really have no idea what you are going on about here.

First of all that wasn't a taxi, but a company van.
The plane's wing struck the front of the van and did NOT strike
the road, hence no damage to the road.

[paranoia]

broken lightpole base, also markings on the asphalt where (to me it appears) the horizontal stabilizer on tail made minor contact with bridge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vTitUdyF_Y...etailpage#t=335


(starting around 5:09)


statistically speaking, planes crash, including many of the atr72's, just have a look at their wiki page for a list. also statistically speaking, more and more cars have dashcams these days. so statistically speaking i would expect to see exactly this sort of video surface from time to time, given the odds that favor such an occurence (plane crash AND the presence of a camera to record it). at the same time i admit that in this propaganda driven electronic age i cant say with 100% certainty what is real or true anymore unless im there to actually sniff it out myself. so the possibility that this crash could be fake exists, but i havent yet come across anything that tilts my belief in that direction (and i've been at it for a good chunk of today). i can stare at pictures all day but unless i could go there and ask questions, i will never know for sure, and imo neither will anyone else on the internets, but they're free to try. speaking of which, ben, instead of pilotsfortruth, maybe you could check here (if you havent already ) for plenty of "everything is fake" discussion, starting with a thread about the TransAsia Airways Flight 235 plane crash:

CODE

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1767

if fakery is your thing, then you will feel right at home there,

[Ben]

Ben I really have no idea what you are going on about here.

First of all that wasn't a taxi, but a company van.
The plane's wing struck the front of the van and did NOT strike
the road, hence no damage to the road.

NP1Mike-

I don't know how you can say that the wing did not strike the road when the stop frame clearly shows the wing meeting the road, and careful measuring shows that the wing meeting the road is 24 feet shorter than the other wing!

[Ben]

broken lightpole base, also markings on the asphalt where (to me it appears) the horizontal stabilizer on tail made minor contact with bridge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vTitUdyF_Y...etailpage#t=335

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_vTitUdyF_Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
(starting around 5:09)


statistically speaking, planes crash, including many of the atr72's, just have a look at their wiki page for a list. also statistically speaking, more and more cars have dashcams these days. so statistically speaking i would expect to see exactly this sort of video surface from time to time, given the odds that favor such an occurence (plane crash AND the presence of a camera to record it). at the same time i admit that in this propaganda driven electronic age i cant say with 100% certainty what is real or true anymore unless im there to actually sniff it out myself. so the possibility that this crash could be fake exists, but i havent yet come across anything that tilts my belief in that direction (and i've been at it for a good chunk of today). i can stare at pictures all day but unless i could go there and ask questions, i will never know for sure, and imo neither will anyone else on the internets, but they're free to try. speaking of which, ben, instead of pilotsfortruth, maybe you could check here (if you havent already ) for plenty of "everything is fake" discussion, starting with a thread about the TransAsia Airways Flight 235 plane crash:

CODE

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1767

if fakery is your thing, then you will feel right at home there,

I definitely do not think "everything is fake" and I do think the Pilot's forum is the appropriate place to discuss this plane crash. Who would know better than those with an avionics background whether or not this dashcam footage is fake or not. Would a wing that has just impacted a road so hard that 24 feet of its length are knocked off show no sign of bending, breaking or crumpling? Would not such an impact also cause the fuselage to slue around?

[amazed!]

I do not think this is a faked accident. It really happened, and a combination of mechanical failure and human error combined to cause it.

From what I'm hearing, the FDR shows that 1 engine failed, the autofeather function worked as designed, and the idiotic crew shut down the operating engine.

Pity.

[Truthissweet]

I do not think this is a faked accident. It really happened, and a combination of mechanical failure and human error combined to cause it.

From what I'm hearing, the FDR shows that 1 engine failed, the autofeather function worked as designed, and the idiotic crew shut down the operating engine.

Pity.

The pilot of the plane did a great job of avoiding the buildings before the plane crashed.

[23investigator]

The pilot of the plane did a great job of avoiding the buildings before the plane crashed.

Dear 'Truthissweet'

Yes the first thing that struck on looking at the images: was how did the pilot manage to thread his way through the buildings and then make an impact landing in the river.

If it was not for the very slight impact with the overpass: what else might he have managed: regardless of everything else.

Let's not lose sight of: he was fighting for everybody's life on that aircraft: as well as his own.

RDS

[Truthissweet]

Dear 'Truthissweet'

Yes the first thing that struck on looking at the images: was how did the pilot manage to thread his way through the buildings and then make an impact landing in the river.

If it was not for the very slight impact with the overpass: what else might he have managed: regardless of everything else.

Let's not lose sight of: he was fighting for everybody's life on that aircraft: as well as his own.

RDS

The plane definitely passes in front of building. Any fakery may have been revealed with plane as it passes by building. It would have been obvious. But, Ben is correct when you really do have to check everything out with all plane crashes for legitimacy since 911.