The TransAsia Airways Flight 235 crash Explained – not a hoax!

JIM STONE writes (

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,


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


Hi Folks,

Anyone using their critical thinking skills should be able to see we have yet another airplane hoax.

Smile, we’re crisis actors…


OK, here are some anomalies that stood out to me…

Look how fat the nose of the plane is in this image:

And upon the ‘recovery’ of the plane it looks long and skinny:


OK, now if you would, watch this video and you’ll understand the next images I posted. Also ask yourself, if the planes’ wing clipped the top of the van, what made that big blast of smoke? And if a real plane plummeted that fast and hard, UPSIDE DOWN, into a shallow river, would anyone really (in real life) be able to walk away on their own?


The answer is, the yellow van was rigged with a squib, just like the bridge was. The cameraman was in the car behind, filming the stunt. The CGI plane was added later. The smaller squib exploded on the van and a second or two later a larger squib was exploded on the bridge. Here is a photo of the ‘blast burn’ where the wing was said to have struck the bridge:


Here is a wider view of the ‘blast burn,’ and note that there is not any reflectors along the bridge:

But in this photo there are reflectors along the bridge and you can see now the black charring is not there:

Were these staged photos taken at two different times at two different bridges?


Here are some more videos:

Taiwan TransAsia Plane Crash Hoax


Taiwan Plane Crash Hoax of February 4, 2015


With a little critical thinking these hoaxes are easy to see through. Rule of Thumb.. If just one part of the ‘story’ doesn’t make sense.. IT’S A HOAX!!

Now do I really need to do a post on the NY commuter train crashing into a jeep hoax… or do you want to figure it out for yourself??


TAP – another video explains how the plane flies through steel poles without any impact visible.  That video then goes off into a religious slant which undercuts its credibility so I didn’t post it.  The pictures were very convincing however.  It reminds you of 911 and the nose cone appearing intact coming right through the building.  When news starts to look like a movie, then it is a movie.


16 Responses to “The TransAsia Airways Flight 235 crash Explained – not a hoax!”

  1. Juliet 46 says:

    The long skinny nose of the plane is actually the tail….

  2. Lanark says:

    @Juliet 46
    Arse => elbow scenario here. Unable to tell which is which. Front end of a plane from the back end. Facepalm!

  3. Nick says:

    Please stop trying to analyse video footage recorded on digital devices. The software makes a ‘best guess’ frame by frame in order to group blocks of colour together for the purposes of reducing bandwidth, that’s why small details seem to appear to overlap sometimes and not overlap other times.

    Also, anomalies can happen with normal physical film too, remember a few years ago that ‘Rods’ mystery when it turned out to be flies?

    The good news with the army of armchair film forensics around is at least a Project Bluebeam won’t fool us in future!

  4. rob frost says:

    I’m one of these guys who thinks everything is a hoax and….so far this plane crash looks legit to me.

    • Tapestry says:

      The other video doing the rounds shows the plane travelling through the metal posts with no effects to posts or plane. I am happy to reserve judgement and see what else comes out.

  5. Aldous says:

    Hi Tap, I missed the brief religious reference ( when posting that link on the UK Airport Trap article but I have to say that there is loads of interesting stuff on their website. Not sure if it’s genuine or kosher though, or if it’s run by the usual suspects as there is no mention I can see of Jews, Zionists or Holocaust Revisionism.

    This next link seems to 100% nail it and interestingly, the author suggests that we may be being tested by the NWO (or whatever one wishes to call them) to see what they can get away with as fabricated ‘News’. Is it a ‘Double Hoax’ where the mistakes in the CGI aren’t actually mistakes at all but designed into (or CGI errors deliberately left in) the video to see how many spot the mistakes(sic) and how quickly? Just a thought.

    Hoax CONFIRMED! TransAsia Plane Crash 100% Fake – Proof 4:36

  6. carolinemerald says: — TransAsia Crash – Flight GE235 Analyzed: Hoax or Legitimate Crash? freeradiorevolution

  7. carolinemerald says: New Footage of TransAsia GE235 from Rooftop – just before Crash

  8. Sabremesh says:

    There are several different dashcam videos of this plane crash, some of them recorded in high definition. Ask yourself why the person behind this youtube video ignored them and chose instead to base his “analysis” on a crappy 360p res video.

  9. Aldous says:

    I think mixing up the nose and tail of the aircraft (a French-Italian ATR 72) is a serious error in this piece and potentially critically damages its credibility, seeing as it is referred to as a crucial piece of evidence that this was a hoax.

    The image referred to is clearly the tail of ‘an aircraft’ and all the ATR 72 variants viewed in Wiki have the A/C Registration towards the rear/tail and NOT at the front/nose.

    In my informed opinion, this crash – had it been real – was not survivable and passengers effectively walking away from it is just more curious BS. I am puzzled by Jordan’s elementary mistake regarding the nose and tail sections of the aircraft. It doesn’t make any sense.

  10. Aldous says:

    I’ve only had a speed read of the latest Jim Stone update but if what JS says is correct, then we have a real plane crash and a fake video out on You Tube of it. The crash is real, the video is fake.

    Incidentally and talking of Stuxnet, the British Airways crash-land (aka ‘arrival’ lol) short of runway 27 Left – 12 minor injuries – at Heathrow of BA Flight 38 (G-YMMM) on 17 January 2008 has always aroused my suspicions, especially as UK PM Gordon Brown and his motorcade were travelling to Heathrow and very close to the final’s approach at the time of the ‘accident’. The aircraft was subsequently written off – or ‘destroyed’ in AAIB parlance.

    The AAIB have of course explained (away) the accident as no doubt instructed but I’ve always thought that control of G-YMMM was taken over at that crucial point in the final approach. It was meant to be a disaster but quick thinking and proficient pilots and a helping nudge over the fence from God, denied the usual suspects their carnage.

  11. Aldous says:

    Jim Stone seems to be saying that the crash actually happened but one look at this image×351.jpg
    tells you all you need to know that the videos of it at least are staged. That paintwork on the tail section of the ATR 72 looks pristine and like it just came off the production line. Not a scratch or blemish. The Registration B-22816 unmarked. What are the chances of that? And yes, it does have the Registration on the nose as well as the tail!

    This is the actual stricken aircraft taxing at Taipei – Songshan (Sung Shan) (TSA / RCSS), Taiwan – 04 October 2014:

  12. RabbiT says:

    I am no expert but have three pilots licences and have undergone training over and over again never to let such an event happen.

    For the aircraft to find itself in this situation the pilot has to have tried to correct wing drop, in a stall, using aileron which results in this kind of scenario.

    No pilot wants to hit the ground this way, it is certainly fatal. A competent pilot would have crashed with wings level whereby he at least has a chance.

    This looks to me to be the stuff of movies.

  13. John says:

    One mistake: You say the nose goes in fat and comes out skinny. But the picture of the “skinny nose” is clearly the tail! It’s obvious from the upside down numbering on the fuselage and the fact that the door is mostly above the windows. This weakens your argument and casts doubt on your ability to regard evidence impartially.

    • Tapestry says:

      There’s a lot of confusion with this one. Time might unravel it. I find it odd the movement of the plane. Why put in such a violent turn just as it arrived in front of camera which was there by chance?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.