It wasn't a fake plane.
Afghanistan
- Thread starter Ruth
- Start date
It wasn't a fake plane.
It was a real plane.
It wasn't a "psyops".
There's nothing to suggest it wasn't, except active imaginations.
A jet engine at low power does very little to nearby objects. Airliner jets taxiing on the runway are operating at low power. Even at high power, the object would have to be behind the jet to be "blown away". This is easily understood intuitively, and if it can't be understood that way, a quick search of YT videos would prove it to be true. It's frustrating and disappointing to see some people on here falling for what amounts to "actors" theory.
It sure does. Check this out.
Pentagon knew about Kabul suicide bombing ‘hours in advance,’ report claims, but troops on the ground say they weren’t protected
US military leaders knew in advance that a “mass casualty event” was planned at Kabul airport, a Politico report reveals. However, accounts from the troops in harm’s way suggest that nothing was done.
At high power, it can destroy cars. At lower power, it can certainly be expected to have a lesser impact.
These engines were at a power level which was moving a C-17. That's one or two hundred tons of force. I'd reference Debra's comment for details. Afghanistan
A pretty good rule of thumb when looking at conspiracy theories (like this fake plane theory) is to look at what the significance would be if it were true as well as the reasonability of the motivations and execution. Theories like this have a certain flavor that lack depth. It's the same as fake earth, fake moon, fake victims, and fake attacks. These things seem to tap into fear or distrust reactions, where the ability to fully utilize reasoning about the topic is bypassed. These theories are also uniquely consuming of energy while being of little to no consequence. The real issues and lies regarding Afghanistan are much more important and of interest.
Also, in addition to being a distraction from the real issues, such speculations as fake planes (a similar one was circulated for the 911 operation with "holographic planes") and actors etc. often serve a narrative. It discredits anyone who has other legitimate suspicions of foul play (like for instance the miraculous arrival of the ISIS-K) or at the minimum the incompetence of the empire, and for those who buy into such claims, it implents the narrative that "the US/NATO army would never do such a thing as abandoning their local operative and let them die, those images of fake planes are a plot to tarnish its reputation". Our world today is built upon narratives that serve a purpose with mind games within mind games for everyone. One has to be careful not to fall into those traps.
Well, I work with 3D models, renders, and e.t.c for about 20 years. I was looking at the video and I was trying to find some anomaly but I could not. The plane and all that crowd running with the plane. I can see any anomaly, any glitch that will suggest it is CG video.
I am not an expert on stuff like this at all, but I could not find any problem. Everything looks realistic on that video. I know that technology today is very advanced, but there is nothing unusual on that video as I can see.
Then, why a fake plane? Who will get anything with such a thing? They don't even try to hide their intentions anymore. We can see the guys behind the curtain.
it is obvious that these 20 years of a bloody show of the PTB in Afghanistan is over and they opened a new frontline. To the whole of humanity this time. They are fighting the " invisible enemy" as they said last year.
The fight with an "invisible enemy" can last forever. They quit Afghanistan, The whole planet is now Afghanistan for them.
And guess what. They are doing this for our own good. They are fighting this "dangerous virus" for our own good. To save humanity.
In the same way, they bring "democracy" to the Afghan people.
I am not an expert on stuff like this at all, but I could not find any problem. Everything looks realistic on that video. I know that technology today is very advanced, but there is nothing unusual on that video as I can see.
Then, why a fake plane? Who will get anything with such a thing? They don't even try to hide their intentions anymore. We can see the guys behind the curtain.
it is obvious that these 20 years of a bloody show of the PTB in Afghanistan is over and they opened a new frontline. To the whole of humanity this time. They are fighting the " invisible enemy" as they said last year.
The fight with an "invisible enemy" can last forever. They quit Afghanistan, The whole planet is now Afghanistan for them.
And guess what. They are doing this for our own good. They are fighting this "dangerous virus" for our own good. To save humanity.
In the same way, they bring "democracy" to the Afghan people.
What does "one or two hundred tons of force" even mean in this context? An airliner like the one in question can move forward at idle thrust, that's perhaps a couple of thousand lbs of thrust. Sure, it's throws out some wind at that level, but it's not what you are suggesting and does NOT prevent the people in the video in question from walking alongside and behind. Look at the height of the engines. Also, no one gets "sucked into" jet engines at that power level.
Debra's comment is completely untrue. Here's one example that proves that people do not get sucked into jet engines at low power.
Some on this forum appear to rely a little too much on their pattern recognition rather than your critical thinking abilities.
Oh boy. I never thought I'd spend so much time looking at pictures of rocket ships and pentagons and airplanes and such. But here I am once more.
Addressing concerns mentioned above:
The "Cui bono?" element...
Saddam's statue tipping event also looked pretty real, but wasn't. It was a prepared P.R. moment designed to show that the people of Iraq were happy with the Americans arriving to topple an evil regime, justifying further military expenditure.
This airplane P.R. moment, if it was constructed, was presumably designed to show that the people of Afghanistan were unhappy with the Americans leaving to allow the erection of an evil regime. It seems to be from the same mind and general playbook to me.
As to the "distraction from the real issues" concern...
That is sometimes an over-used concept, I think.
Exploring a point may cost energy, and this one may not be relevant in the same manner beside the larger facts on the ground, but that doesn't diminish its objective reality. Or in this case, perhaps its un-reality. Don't you want to be sure? It's too easy to make snap judgements and while Joe may have genuine reason to feel confident in his observation skills and thus make strong declarations, I know that I don't have that skill level, so I'm going to have to do it the hard way; working it out with picky attention to detail:
That gentleman in beige/yellow on the lower Right is wearing a long gold scarf. It is dangling at his back. He is standing within about eight feet of the air intake of a Pratt & Whitney jet engine which, at it's lowest setting capable of moving a C-17, would be producing a minimum of 1700 lbs of thrust to be moving a plane of that size.
He (and the fellow jogging directly beneath the engine intake) are inside the danger zone for a jet engine of that size, running at that speed. And his scarf is not even moving in the breeze.
I've by now read a fair bit about airport maintenance safety and jet engines, and the engine characteristics of particular model of plane.
These are some basic safety guideline illustrations for airport maintenance people:
Here are some remarks about what to expect from airliner jets from an employee:
The video you provided is certainly evidence that a jet engine once its power is turned off and spinning down, is not very dangerous; it showed that men could get right up next to the bell of the intake.
There are numerous indications throughout the video that the cameraman was using the zoom feature to good effect, keeping himself out of the danger area, and in particular around the 3:00 mark, captured the amount of wind being produced. -While the engine was actually being powered, nobody was anywhere near the intake. If we had seen a man moving near the intake while the engine was producing thrust, then we would know more.
In the news clip, the engines sounded like they were being turned down to low power, and the plane may have been moving on momentum. If there was a pilot alerted to the fact that there were so many people around the plane, he would likely have taken care to not hurt anybody by powering up. It would have been instructive to see a bit more of the footage.
Addressing concerns mentioned above:
The "Cui bono?" element...
Saddam's statue tipping event also looked pretty real, but wasn't. It was a prepared P.R. moment designed to show that the people of Iraq were happy with the Americans arriving to topple an evil regime, justifying further military expenditure.
This airplane P.R. moment, if it was constructed, was presumably designed to show that the people of Afghanistan were unhappy with the Americans leaving to allow the erection of an evil regime. It seems to be from the same mind and general playbook to me.
As to the "distraction from the real issues" concern...
That is sometimes an over-used concept, I think.
Exploring a point may cost energy, and this one may not be relevant in the same manner beside the larger facts on the ground, but that doesn't diminish its objective reality. Or in this case, perhaps its un-reality. Don't you want to be sure? It's too easy to make snap judgements and while Joe may have genuine reason to feel confident in his observation skills and thus make strong declarations, I know that I don't have that skill level, so I'm going to have to do it the hard way; working it out with picky attention to detail:
That gentleman in beige/yellow on the lower Right is wearing a long gold scarf. It is dangling at his back. He is standing within about eight feet of the air intake of a Pratt & Whitney jet engine which, at it's lowest setting capable of moving a C-17, would be producing a minimum of 1700 lbs of thrust to be moving a plane of that size.
He (and the fellow jogging directly beneath the engine intake) are inside the danger zone for a jet engine of that size, running at that speed. And his scarf is not even moving in the breeze.
I've by now read a fair bit about airport maintenance safety and jet engines, and the engine characteristics of particular model of plane.
These are some basic safety guideline illustrations for airport maintenance people:
Here are some remarks about what to expect from airliner jets from an employee:
While she may have been indulging in some hyperbole, I didn't get the impression that Debra was being deliberately misleading or even wrong. What she said lines up with airport safety rules and the reports of other ground crew I've seen in discussion forums.
The video you provided is certainly evidence that a jet engine once its power is turned off and spinning down, is not very dangerous; it showed that men could get right up next to the bell of the intake.
There are numerous indications throughout the video that the cameraman was using the zoom feature to good effect, keeping himself out of the danger area, and in particular around the 3:00 mark, captured the amount of wind being produced. -While the engine was actually being powered, nobody was anywhere near the intake. If we had seen a man moving near the intake while the engine was producing thrust, then we would know more.
In the news clip, the engines sounded like they were being turned down to low power, and the plane may have been moving on momentum. If there was a pilot alerted to the fact that there were so many people around the plane, he would likely have taken care to not hurt anybody by powering up. It would have been instructive to see a bit more of the footage.
