JIM STONE writes (jimstonefreelance.com)
Time to call it: Trans Asia aircraft was definitely “Stuxnet” crashed
I was suspicious last night when many “shills” were ridiculing oriental pilots, saying they cannot fly worth jack. This is exactly the type of trollage you get when something was caused and needs to be covered up. Today there are zillions of pilot “experts” out there claiming this that and there is no way it was sabotage. But here is the bottom line: At first, one engine lost power. The pilots did the correct thing to regain control, and that was to cut power to the remaining engine to correct course, and then re-apply power. They never got power back on that engine, which means it was also cut off PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION
With absolutely no plane malfunctions showing up in the fully recovered flight recorders this leaves a hack as the most probable scenario. Unlike what the shills are saying, the pilots showed amazing skill in getting a totally whacked plane to crash in an area where there would be no other collateral damage. Now the big question is, WHO WAS ON THAT PLANE?
Unlike airline crashes that happen in Western controlled countries, China already has all the data and has confirmed that both engines shut off a minute after takeoff when there was nothing wrong with any mechanical or control system on the ALMOST BRAND NEW AIRPLANE.
The black boxes had all the information. The aircraft first had the left engine go out completely and soon after, the right engine stopped producing power even when asked for it. The aircraft remained fully functional sans engines but the right engine failed to feather the prop (for no mechanical reason whatsoever,) when it stopped producing power which increased drag and caused the crash to happen sooner than it would have. The aircraft warned the pilots 5 separate times that stall speed had been reached, and at the last second the pilots managed to ditch it in the river (just as I had said) rather than having a horrible crash into buildings. The dead pilots are now deemed to be heroes for taking actions that reduced the loss of life.
Now there are questions – How did both engines quit when there was no problem with the fuel system, as logged by the flight recorders? According to the data saved by the flight recorders, nothing happened that could have caused a failure, yet both engines mysteriously quit running. The flight recorders also logged numerous attempts by the pilots to restart the engines, which would not start.
I will tell you how such a mysterious event could happen, and it is called STUXNET, REMOTE ACCESS, AND INCONVENIENT PEOPLE ABOARD THE PLANE. At this point in time, it is the ONLY ANSWER.
And now I would like to rant.
The idiots who (likely) caused this crash from some remote hole in the Negev Desert just gave 911 truth a whole bag of ammo, you see – because this was a very large aircraft that was too similar in size to the 911 planes which erased half a wing on a bridge that was not built nearly as well as the towers, and it did absolutely no damage to the road surface and absolutely no damage to all but a thin ornamental piece of metal on the comparatively paper thin and weak concrete guard rail. How do you erase a similar airplane wing on a bridge with no damage evident whatsoever, when supposedly on 911 the wings cut through enormous steel beams on two of the world’s toughest buildings, knocking out huge sections of them extending up and down a floor?
I did question how on earth airplanes could have cut the beams that badly on 911 when the material strengths were so many orders of magnitude different, but just figured it must have just been the way it was. After this bridge incident I DO NOT THINK SO ANYMORE. The plane was too big and the guard rail simply too weak, many many many times weaker than the steel beams at the WTC, let alone the center columns. IF planes did whack the WTC that badly, they had to have been packed with explosives all the way out to the wing tips. Now the nose out video is all the more compelling.
Obviously there will be those who point out the fact that the 911 planes were going much faster. But there are a couple problems with this – ONE – it does not matter which object is moving faster, to the plane, the beams would have been “moving fast” towards it and all the more able to cut the wings without being damaged,
AND TWO: because the 911 planes were at a low altitude, they could not go fast. Speed of that type of aircraft is rated at cruising altitude where the air is thin. That close to the ground, the wind drag would have been (approximately) 3.5 times as much as at cruising altitude. They did not hit the towers at 500 plus mph, they would have been ready to self destruct from wind friction somewhere in the 300 mph range. Speed cannot explain how the 911 aircraft cut the beams, something other than airplanes was at play in that scenario.
With a takeoff weight of over 50,000 pounds and a top (normal cruising speed) of 380 mph (with actual maximums being higher) the ATR-72-600 that hit the bridge had too much in common with the 911 planes to do absolutely no structural damage to the bridge AT ALL, and then have the 911 planes magically destroy enormous swaths of much larger and robust structures. Additionally, the ATR 72-600 cruises at a much lower altitude, which would increase wing stresses due to wind resistance and increase the need to make them stronger as a result. A 757 no doubt has stronger wings, but they would not be that much stronger, the lack of damage to the bridge in Taiwan really does call B.S. on 911 in a totally new way.
In the probable crashing of the Taiwan aircraft via remote access, I believe the people who perpetrated 911 unwittingly gave us the key comparison that trash bags the official story of 911,
DEAR DIMONA TRIBE:
If there were planes on 911, they were packed with explosives from wing tip to wing tip, PERIOD.
Posted By: Jordon [Send E-Mail]
Date: Thursday, 5-Feb-2015 08:34:27