It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Langley Intelligence Group Network: 'Boeing Source Says Missing Plane in Pakistan'

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   

FlyersFan

Jordan River
Whats iran doing lately?

Maybe secretly jumping up and down for joy because their buddies in Pakistan now have a 777 to play terrorist with? Seriously though .. the last thing I read coming out of Iran was some nutter Imam 12ther saying that when their imaginary 12th Imam shows up, he'll decapitate all the leaders in the West.


NATO Summit?




posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Hopefully the media blackout on actual facts about it whereabouts are a deliberate ploy to buy time for security forces to require the plane and it's occupants.

As far as the capabilities and the actual facts of our security apparatus they still have capabilities that go beyond reporting and wars that go without mention, to underestimate them is silly at best.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Why am I not surprised that the "experts" now proclaim that the plane is in Pakistan. Sounds like the prequel to the next middle east invasion.

As far as the Langley Intelligence Group Network, I'd recommend a bit of caution before taking their advice seriously. I don't trust any "professional group" that perpetuates the lies about 9/11/2001.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 06:39 AM
link   
I thought all large commercial aircraft had small ingots of depleted uranium in their wings(from Mythbusters Programme) so they could be tracked even when the transponder was turned off?????



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


It is perfectly acceptable to have a bad opinion of the CIA, but any "faulty intelligence" has mostly come from the political top down, not the other way. It is not a monolithic organization.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Former General Doubles Down on Claim Malaysian Plane Could Be in Pakistan

Appearing on Fox & Friends last week, retired United States Air Force Gen. Thomas McInerney speculated that the missing Malaysian passenger airliner had been intentionally flown to South Asia where it could be used as a delivery vehicle for conventional or nuclear explosives by terrorist actors. On Tuesday, McInerney repeated that claim and said that the recent actions of the Israeli and American governments lent credence to that theory.

McInerney and Fox host Steve Doocy revealed that some personnel at Boeing agree that the missing plane could have flown to Pakistan. “My course of action that I gave you last Friday that, number one, it was hijacked and, number two, we ought to look at Pakistan and Eastern Iran was a course of action that just wasn’t arbitrary,” McInerney said. “That’s all I can say now.”



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I've heard everywhere that a hangar would be needed to hide this plane.
Didn't the US hide an entire town, in WW2- with basically camo netting/poles?? I believe in CA, Moffett Field or a town very close to that.
edit on 19-3-2014 by soccerscott because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Britguy
Aaaaah! So it flew all the way to Pakistan, skimming the surf no doubt and then the treetops when overland to avoid detection by anyone! Some feat of piloting skills right there!


Next they'll be telling us that the highly organised team of hijackers inched out across the wings and stuffed the engine exhausts with balled up socks stripped from the passengers to muffle the sound too!



you don't need skill to fly a plane low.You just set the autopilot and adjust the level.It's very simple.modern planes are full of computers.Even a iphone app can fly a plane.

Even on manual without you just adjust the level and fly as normal.You are flying through air.It makes no difference at all if the air is up high or the air is low.It's just air.

i mean it's as if you are flapping your arms.It's just air high or low who cares.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg

SLAYER69
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Having said that

It's a lot more probable than any number of possibilities hair brained theories floating about the interwebs.

I've scratched off Aliens, inter-dimensional shifts, landing on an aircraft carrier and group ascension.



An aircraft carrier? Seriously? Which morons thought that one up?


Well, if you put like 4 or 5 of them, end to end and just have the pilot "pull up" and jump each "bump" between each ship joint, then maybe yeah.,,
No one really made a thread about that, right?



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   

FlyersFan

LIGNET - Boeing Source Says Missing Plane In Pakistan



They will most likely find all the missing WMD there from Iraq.

It's amazing how great US intelligence is; makes me proud to be american.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 02:57 AM
link   
I know we are being directed over and over towards the plane, but wouldn't have been easier to take a smaller plane that didn't have passengers? You don't need a 777 for a dirty bomb. Who were the people on the plane? Were their any special scientists or people in very powerful positions on the plane? What was that special cargo? I personally think the motive lies with the passengers and/or the cargo. Something else that attracts my attention is the precision and rapidness of the hi-jacking. I think we all knew from the beginning that the pilot would get the blame, but it seems a little too professional to be a jehadist, at least the the ones we see on tv responsible for other attacks.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by championoftruth
 


There is a world of difference between flying at 35k ft and 3500ft, not least the difference in air pressure, which affects things like flight controls and fuel consumption. There is no way on this earth the plane could have made it all the way to Pakistan (at the very edge of its range anyway in normal flight) flying "under the radar".

Also, claims of it being in the Maldives seem to ignore the fact that they only have a single Airport capable of taking the aircraft and someone would notice it....

No one, however, has mentioned Diego Garcia....... Just to throw that in the works, even though I don't believe it myself...



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   

stumason
reply to post by championoftruth
 


There is a world of difference between flying at 35k ft and 3500ft, not least the difference in air pressure, which affects things like flight controls and fuel consumption. There is no way on this earth the plane could have made it all the way to Pakistan (at the very edge of its range anyway in normal flight) flying "under the radar".


So you think the terrorists were worried about fuel consumption.flight controls.its just air.
seriously.

A plane takes off from the ground.nothing stopping it staying 500 feet up.surely fuel consumption would be lower because the air is thicker and you need less lift and you can fly slower to reduce friction/drag because drag is proportional to the square of the velocity says physics professors.
so flying slowly would reduce drag.also thicker air makes flight controls more responsive as you have more to push against.so the terrorists would have flown SLOW and LOW and reached their terrorist buddies to plot mass murder against us all.We need to act and stop the,send drones,planes,troops,the navy.anything to thwart them.
I don't understand why we have not sent troops to pakisitan and I hear they and their ISI are involved supporting taliban terrorists against America.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by championoftruth
 


Actually, if I was going to go to the trouble of stealing a 777, I would be worried about fuel consumption to ensure I could get the aircraft to where I was supposed to.

And no, flying lower actually increases fuel consumption, not decreases it, owing to higher drag. Basic flying 101 and I'm not even a pilot.

Wiki article on fuel consumption in Jet aircraft
edit on 20/3/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   

lost in space
I know we are being directed over and over towards the plane, but wouldn't have been easier to take a smaller plane that didn't have passengers? You don't need a 777 for a dirty bomb.


It depends on where the nuclear waste or biological or chemical weaponry is, where the target is, and how big the target is / how much damage you want to cause.

If the stuff you're using for the bomb is in Pakistan / Afghanistan and your target is Washington DC, then a Cessna isn't going to get you or your bomb anywhere near the target or do enough damage, you need a plane with a long range, like a 777.

I can't see it being possible to transport nuclear waste or other weapons of that nature to the US by sea. If they are biological they may even have a shelf life / need to be kept in certain conditions.

I think that there is a plot behind this to do something really bad, just wonder who's behind it and what they plan to do.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   

stumason
reply to post by championoftruth
 


Actually, if I was going to go to the trouble of stealing a 777, I would be worried about fuel consumption to ensure I could get the aircraft to where I was supposed to...


I read in one of the six and a half thousand ATS threads about this plane - can't remember which - that there were 50 seats unavailable.

Certainly this would extend the range, though i've no idea by how much. Might the culprits have worked out exactly how much fuel they'd need and made necessary adjustments, such as making sure the plane was 50 people lighter than usual?

If so it could be a lead to help with the math on their destination. I imagine the CIA are already running plenty of algorithms including one that's 50 people lighter to produce potential destinations based on fuel etc.



edit on 20-3-2014 by McGinty because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by McGinty
 


Good point, but as I understand it, the pilots will calculate the required amount of fuel based on their take off weight (with an added amount as a reserve no doubt) so I would have thought these 50 empty seats would have been accounted for in the fuel load.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Absolutely, unless someone were able to prevent that info from reaching the guys that put the fuel in - the docket they get not mentioning/accounting for the 50 seats.

I've no idea of course, as a total layman. I wonder how unusual it is for such a flight to have 50 seats unavailable and if the effect upon range is negligible or meaningful?



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Meldionne1

FlyersFan

Meldionne1
Would the plane have to had refueled somewhere to make it to Pakistan?

No. It could make it there. Even flying under radar at 5,000 feet.
At least, that's what the talking heads on TV said.


Well in that case, I believe it! ......it's probably pay back for Osama bin laden , ....the radical Muslims have stripped the plane, painted it, created a fake flight manifest. And it is now a ticking bomb....at least that's one of my opinions...or.....an even more evil would be to have the plane reappear, with family members and the threat off a nuke bomb on it. While trying to force an unauthorized landing in the US, would make the airforce jets have to scramble and shoot it down. ....thus killing all the family members on the plane and tormenting millions of people who have been waiting to find it and the people. Only to watch them get shoot down and killed....Just think of the psychological warfare that would do!


Yes and then it will be discovered that there was no bomb on the plane after all and the U.S. just shot the plane down for no reason. :trollface:



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by McGinty
 


There is also the possibility that the 50 empty seats allowed the plane to carry a... let's see, 50 people would weigh maybe let's say 150 lbs each times 50 is... 7,500 lbs? Wait can that be right? Yeah I guess so. That's a lot of weight. So yeah there could've been thousands of pounds of explosives in the cargo area?

Or there's the theories about a top secret cargo which may or may not be weapons of some sort. Perhaps it was the cloaking tech equipment people are speculating about with the semiconductor company employees? The employees may have been sent along with the equipment in order to operate and maintain and monitor results or whatever. Who knows.




top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join