Can we talk about this C-130 crash?

[Zimme83]

It's no guy walking in front of the truck. It's the guys elbow that pops put of the window of the semi. Re watch my original video. In it's entirety.   

1. Why did HLN remove 76 frames so it appears like it blew up instantly after the crash.
2. Why did the plane take 5-6 seconds or more to blow up in the other films.
3. Why does it only blow up after the black drone things zooms from the sky?
4. Why was the explosion so big? Has anyone ever seen an explosion this large from a plane, 5-10 seconds after it crashes?

In the original video where you can see the black thing. The original one with sounds (not the one I posted). One of the guys even asked if it was 2 planes. Then the guy says, nah it was only one... So they noticed the black thing too. In that original footage. It just looks way to fast to be a bird to me.

And this is the 4th question. Why weren't they at full power? Why is there no attempt at correcting the plane from falling?

This is just bizzare to me, that's why I'm asking yall who have seen and been around planes and this kind of stuff before.

Here is the very original video that the guy used in the film I posted.
https://youtu.be/GQeVoXU3ZI8

The reason it took so  long for it to explode is simply that it didnt took so long, it exploded on impact, but the terrain between the impact site and the camera obscures it so you only see the smoke plume when it has risen high enough to be visible over the terrain.  Just because you dont understand how things happen it doesnt mean that there are something suspicious going on. What you see in the video is a C-130 stalling and then enter a spin and crash, an event that have killed far to many aircrews. It is not possible to tell why this happened as the entire event prior to the stall isnt filmed. But nothing in the film suggest there have been any foul play or something like that.

[Vraciu]

Another observation from the video.  Assuming this was after takeoff, there’s very little exhaust smoke and the aircraft appears to be in a gradual descent at relatively slow speed.  All the 130s I’ve ever seen on climb out after takeoff have a visible trail of exhaust smoke. That could indicate it was at reduced power setting for some reason.  Obviously not a normal set of circumstances during a 130 climb out.

Has anyone seen or heard ATC/aircraft radio transmissions before the crash?

Yep.  They’re almost as smoky as the pre-“smokeless” F-4s were. 

[Puma44]

Yep.  They’re almost as smoky as the pre-“smokeless” F-4s were. 

When the Air Force started installing smokeless engines, it was common to see one of our Rhinos coming up intitial with one smoking and one not.  Compared to earlier days it looked like one engine was shut down because there was virtually no exhaust smoke visible.

[Tec]

It's no guy walking in front of the truck. It's the guys elbow that pops put of the window of the semi. Re watch my original video. In it's entirety.   

1. Why did HLN remove 76 frames so it appears like it blew up instantly after the crash.
2. Why did the plane take 5-6 seconds or more to blow up in the other films.
3. Why does it only blow up after the black drone things zooms from the sky?
4. Why was the explosion so big? Has anyone ever seen an explosion this large from a plane, 5-10 seconds after it crashes?


And this is the 4th question. Why weren't they at full power? Why is there no attempt at correcting the plane from falling?



Here is the very original video that the guy used in the film I posted.
https://youtu.be/GQeVoXU3ZI8

Possibly high voltage power lines, or an heirloom crib with lead paint.

First off, that is not "The original video".  That's some mongoloid recording a video of his TV.  I was checking youtube as soon as the news broke, here is the "original video" in all it's HD glory.  And just an FYI if you click on the settings button you can slow it down to quarter speed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldwWfQb4Odo&t=186s

Watch it full screen at .25 speed.  I'm assuming what you call "the black drone thing", is at 39 seconds, and it's clearly a bird in close proximity to the camera.  In the second portion, you can plainly see the window on the white truck (the one where the "elbow pops up" is rolled up, you can also plainly see a man walking across the lot towards the camera, he goes out of view in front of the truck, then you can see him thru the windshield and just as he's about to emerge in full view the video is cut.  Other than the part where the guy is cut from the video all the time stamps match up.  And it even gives the name of the company who provided the video so maybe you should ask them.

Notice how there is a hill there on the horizon?  When we lose sight of the plane is not going to be exactly the moment of impact.

Why was the explosion so big?  Seriously?  Lets see, they just took off from Georgia on a flight to Arizona.  Not sure if you're aware but that plane has four big thirsty engines that run on very flammable dinosaur bones. 

There is another video which shows the aircraft is slow and appearing to yaw to the left. Seems a good bet something went terribly wrong leading up to a stall.  They reportedly just had maintenance done, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it all comes back to that.

Now here's something for you to ponder.  If the Illuminati or whomever is capable of these gigantic and intricate conspiracies with unlimited funds and technology why would they cut those frames?  It's a stationary camera so it would be easy enough to edit out anything you don't want seen.  Cutting the frames is obvious, especially since they didn't bother to crop out the time stamp which plainly shows the edit.

[Vraciu]

When the Air Force started installing smokeless engines, it was common to see one of our Rhinos coming up intitial with one smoking and one not.  Compared to earlier days it looked like one engine was shut down because there was virtually no exhaust smoke visible.

  Nice. 

I remember reading John Trotti’s “Phantom Over Vietnam” as a kid.   He said that in the combat area they’d select min burner to reduce smoke and pop the speed brakes to keep the speed down.   What a waste of gas.

[Puma44]

Nice. 

I remember reading John Trotti’s “Phantom Over Vietnam” as a kid.   He said that in the combat area they’d select min burner to reduce smoke and pop the speed brakes to keep the speed down.   What a waste of gas.

On a clear day, a Phantom could be seen 60 or more miles away with a sky backdrop.  A common tactic during air to air intercepts was to start the initial run at an opponent in ful MIL (full smoke and cinders) so they could see us coming.  Then, go idle, break laterally, dive down so the opponent had to find us in the ground clutter, and the go to full AB and let the Rhino charge without much visible exhaust smoke. 

So, after that short side bar, back to the C-130.  Every accident has a chain of events that lead up to the end.  So very tragic this crew was unable to break the chain and recover.

[Gman]

First off, that is not "The original video".  That's some mongoloid recording a video of his TV.  I was checking youtube as soon as the news broke, here is the "original video" in all it's HD glory.  And just an FYI if you click on the settings button you can slow it down to quarter speed.

Violator, this is exactly what I meant, exactly, regarding jumping in before more facts and information are determined by investigators that can't really "fake" something, vis a vis what Claphas is referring too.  I'm in agreement, something is definitely up out there, but in cases like this, so shortly after prior to anything reliable coming out (ie TV recorded videos of other videos), IMO jumping in early with theories about whatever, is something to be avoided.

Again, I'm not attacking you or discrediting your overall beliefs, but, in cases like this where some pinhead has put out videos and opinions which aren't based in fact - THAT discredits actual incidents that have happened.  What I regard as an actual incident is one that has video or sworn statements from reliable observers, military/airline/etc pilots and others in trained positions, which have no reason to lie, statements that are difficult to discredit.  Everything about the OP and this incident do not fall into that category, at all IMO.


Puma44 - interesting about the Phantom engines, Mark Berent also wrote in his books about the smoke F4 engines put out in Vietnam while he/his characters flew then, and after he met the Russian ambassador while he was doing similar work, said that the Russians thought the US was crazy for putting a fighter in the air which smoked so much.  This is all 2nd hand -3rd hand? -from his interviews and writing, and only a single source, but I've always wondered how much of a problem that F4 engine smoke really was especially in combat zones, and when/what the USAF/USN/ETC did about it?  My question is what year did the F4 start getting the smokeless (less smoke?) engines?  Sorry to drag this O/T, but since others are asking stuff... (interesting info Vraciu, going to read that book myself now).

[Vraciu]

On a clear day, a Phantom could be seen 60 or more miles away with a sky backdrop.  A common tactic during air to air intercepts was to start the initial run at an opponent in ful MIL (full smoke and cinders) so they could see us coming.  Then, go idle, break laterally, dive down so the opponent had to find us in the ground clutter, and the go to full AB and let the Rhino charge without much visible exhaust smoke. 

So, after that short side bar, back to the C-130.  Every accident has a chain of events that lead up to the end.  So very tragic this crew was unable to break the chain and recover.

Good stuff.   

[Vraciu]

Puma44 - interesting about the Phantom engines, Mark Berent also wrote in his books about the smoke F4 engines put out in Vietnam while he/his characters flew then, and after he met the Russian ambassador while he was doing similar work, said that the Russians thought the US was crazy for putting a fighter in the air which smoked so much.  This is all 2nd hand -3rd hand? -from his interviews and writing, and only a single source, but I've always wondered how much of a problem that F4 engine smoke really was especially in combat zones, and when/what the USAF/USN/ETC did about it?  My question is what year did the F4 start getting the smokeless (less smoke?) engines?  Sorry to drag this O/T, but since others are asking stuff... (interesting info Vraciu, going to read that book myself now).

That's the pot calling the kettle black, too.   Russian engines are certainly dirty enough themselves--or were.

FOV is a good book from the Marine side of the war.  I'd also HIGHLY recommend "PALACE COBRA" by Ed Rasimus.    He flew 105s ("When Thunder Rolled") then came back in F-4s.   It's an interesting read, especially how he compares the two airplanes.    I couldn't put it down.

[DmonSlyr]

Violator, this is exactly what I meant, exactly, regarding jumping in before more facts and information are determined by investigators that can't really "fake" something, vis a vis what Claphas is referring too.  I'm in agreement, something is definitely up out there, but in cases like this, so shortly after prior to anything reliable coming out (ie TV recorded videos of other videos), IMO jumping in early with theories about whatever, is something to be avoided.

Again, I'm not attacking you or discrediting your overall beliefs, but, in cases like this where some pinhead has put out videos and opinions which aren't based in fact - THAT discredits actual incidents that have happened.  What I regard as an actual incident is one that has video or sworn statements from reliable observers, military/airline/etc pilots and others in trained positions, which have no reason to lie, statements that are difficult to discredit.  Everything about the OP and this incident do not fall into that category, at all IMO.


Puma44 - interesting about the Phantom engines, Mark Berent also wrote in his books about the smoke F4 engines put out in Vietnam while he/his characters flew then, and after he met the Russian ambassador while he was doing similar work, said that the Russians thought the US was crazy for putting a fighter in the air which smoked so much.  This is all 2nd hand -3rd hand? -from his interviews and writing, and only a single source, but I've always wondered how much of a problem that F4 engine smoke really was especially in combat zones, and when/what the USAF/USN/ETC did about it?  My question is what year did the F4 start getting the smokeless (less smoke?) engines?  Sorry to drag this O/T, but since others are asking stuff... (interesting info Vraciu, going to read that book myself now).

He posted an 11 alive MSM version that is the same as the video being debunked in my original post. Look at the Elbow in the picture. Look the time that explosion happened compared to the other video. Why would they do this? The shaking camera is also an effect.

There is a difference in time between the first video they showed explosion, compared to the second time they showed the video from the other angle. The second angle shows a manipulation in the film.

The first crash they show in the 11 alive is the correct version. The second at 3:40 is the doctored video that even shows a speed up  in time. Why would they cut it out and why would they cut out the craft/bird in the second video if it was only a bird?

[MiloMorai]

[Tec]

Dude it's not an elbow, it's a guy walking in front of the truck.  You're either being purposely disingenuous or you're blind.  Off I go to do some screen capping I guess.

[DmonSlyr]

Dude it's not an elbow, it's a guy walking in front of the truck.  You're either being purposely disingenuous or you're blind.  Off I go to do some screen capping I guess.

The first crash they show in the 11 alive is the correct version. The second at 3:40 is the doctored video that even shows a speed up  in time. Why would they cut it out and why would they cut out the craft/bird in the second video if it was only a bird?

Okay, so looking at it. I do see that it possibly Is a person. So why then does he dissapear?

[Mister Fork]

I think its edited for effect as there was a second or two before the explosion and the news team decided to just cut out the pause for dramatic crash effect. Crappy, but it's how the news industry works.

[Tec]

Inside the red circle is a bipedal humanoid in dark attire.  Take note of the view through the windows on the white truck, steering wheel and ground on the far side is visible.







He's about to disappear from view, obscured by the truck.



Here he is in front of the truck visible through the windows.



A - The dude is starting to clear the truck.  B - The A pillar on the truck, nothing is blocking it, so what you see has to be on the far side of the truck. 



Timestamp = 4:26:40 Plane = About to be out of view





Timestamp = 4:26:45 Fireball just starting to emerge from behind the hill.





No one is claiming there hasn't been a couple seconds removed from the one camera view as there clearly has been.  It's painfully obvious to anyone gifted with sight, which would make it a laughably bad attempt at some sort of a cover up.  Other than that everything in the two clips sync up.  It would be easy for someone with the right gear and know how to just make that dude and anything else they wanted to hide disappear.  But even I can hack out a couple seconds of video with WMM.  I've given you my theory on why they chose to cut that little bit out.  If that's not reasonable you could always contact the trucking company whose cameras the videos are from and ask them.