Two Clinton Informants Killed In Russian Plane Crash

Two Russian citizens set to testify against Hillary Clinton have been killed in an “inexplicable” plane crash in Moscow, according to reports.

Two Clinton Informants Killed In Russian Plane Crash

Hmmm, the second article I've seen today about the Clinton body count. I have no idea if this story is true and don't know how trustworthy the source is... I did think the plane crash was odd when I saw it a few days ago. But I can make this prediction, IF the Clintons were in fact behind these deaths....the information will come out.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

Luci wouldn't have you.
I know a cousin of Shaitan who might be interested though.

K~

a reply to: CIAGypsy

Except that it's far from unexplained. They already have the preliminary cause for it, and it was remarkably simple, and surprisingly common.

I know it is hard to belive for some, but these people have to travel too and many fly commercial. Which means when they crash, they die too.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I assume you are talking about the ice sensor malfunction?

Here's the part that I find odd -

"When the crew detected the issue, they switched off the plane's autopilot. They eventually took the plane into a dive at 30-35 degrees."

Now I am not a pilot.... So maybe a pilot can answer this question to my satisfaction.... But here's what I find odd. Your plane is registering malfunctions as it relates to speed. So you make the decision to shut off the autopilot.... Why the hell would you suddenly nosedive with your sensors malfunctioning and no autopilot? This seems to be an illogical decision to me....

originally posted by: CIAGypsy

Two Russian citizens set to testify against Hillary Clinton have been killed in an “inexplicable” plane crash in Moscow, according to reports.

Two Clinton Informants Killed In Russian Plane Crash

Hmmm, the second article I've seen today about the Clinton body count. I have no idea if this story is true and don't know how trustworthy the source is... I did think the plane crash was odd when I saw it a few days ago. But I can make this prediction, IF the Clintons were in fact behind these deaths....the information will come out.

Really? Could you provide a REAL source. This is utterly ridiculous.
If this is indeed true, surely there are at least a couple more right?

a reply to: Zaphod58

a reply to: CIAGypsy

Because the autopilot needs data from the air data computer, which is now reading differential data, so it's not going to stay activated to begin with.

Then, when your airspeed drops, your first instinct isn't "I have a sensor malfunction" it's "oh crap, we're about to stall". That means get your nose down to build up airspeed again. Which is exactly what they did. It takes time to diagnose if it's sensor or an actual airspeed drop, and at 6500 feet, you don't have a lot of it, especially if it's an actual drop and you stall.

And if they were in IFR conditions, it was made worse, because you have to rely on instruments, but have a possible instrument malfunction. So do you trust your other instruments, or not?

a reply to: Zaphod58

From the sounds of it, it seems that the crash wouldn't have happened had they had a little more altitude/time.

If it was IFR conditions, that only makes the situation worse.

a reply to: seagull

It might not have. There have been a lot of iced over pitot tubes in recent years, so at least one manufacture put out instructions on how to deal with it if you suddenly get a differential speed warning, or your airspeed drops while in various phases of flight.

They had so many failures, not necessarily icing, but just failures, that an AD was issued recommending that they change from that brand to Thales.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I get what you are saying but it still seems illogical to me for a pilot to nosedive at 5000 feet. He would know he has little to no time to recover?

Second, this is all supposing that the information coming from Russia about what caused the crash is accurate. Can it be independently verified?

Furthermore if you decide to shut off the autopilot and suddenly nose dive at 5000 feet, wouldn't it also make sense to radio to the control tower a distress call?

Yet, no distress call was made at all

a reply to: CIAGypsy

It's training. They train until it becomes second nature. They do it without even thinking.

There are plenty of indicators beyond what they're saying. The weather was right, they had multiple airspeed indicator failures due to icing on pitot tubes in the same area a few days before this incident on a different type of aircraft....

a reply to: CIAGypsy

No. Steps 1-49 on the emergency checklist are, in big friendly bold letters (no it doesn't really say this but you get the point) FLY THE DAMN AIRPLANE. Step 50 is call the ground.

Exactly what is anyone on the ground going to do? They can't help you fly the plane, and the last thing you need is someone bothering you while you're trying to figure out and fix what's going on.

Tragedy in Ramensky

The witnesses of the crash, who are residents of Stepanovskoye village, say the plane started to burn in the air. People heard a loud burst before this. ''The burst was good, the glasses shattered. And immediately there was a huge cupola, like a mushroom,'' the locals describe the crash.

And why would witnesses say the plane was on fire in the air??

a reply to: CIAGypsy

Because witnesses in plane crashes are notoriously unreliable. You can ask five people to describe what happened, and get five different answers. They initially said it exploded in midair.

It's possible it was though, if they maneuvered too hard, something in the engine could have failed and they had an engine fire, although preliminary FDR data doesn't seem to show a fire.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

Oh FFS the odds of there being these many informant "deaths by coincidence" makes innocence impossible.

How many more before people see the [snipped] for what they are.

Why doesnt THEIR plane crash?

I wonder who , if any , in a few weeks will be coming back to this thread with an apology and eating humble pie.
Time will tell...
I get the logic behind what happened , but who is to say what happened wasn't planned ?
Trust , but verify....

a reply to: Zaphod58

Is it possible someone on the ground sabotaged the sensor and made sure it was going to malfunction?

They were talking about this over on that Qanon thread, and well that's a different story in and of itself..................

BUT!!!!

What's the likelihood that a plane crash would be the result of an intentionally malfunctioning sensor?

a reply to: gpols

These sensors are pretty bulletproof. It's hard to sabotage one so it starts out working and fails in a couple minutes. It's basically a hollow tube that measures the air going into it. If it was sabotage, I'd expect more than just the captain side airspeed indicator. There are three indicators for airspeed, and the backup was reading correctly. We don't know about the First Officer side.

If the crew reacts correctly, they can keep the aircraft flying, and could have even landed it again with the captain side indicator reading 0 the whole time. That's why I don't think it was anything but an accident. If they had reacted differently, it wouldn't have happened. There was too much chance of them NOT crashing for it to be sabotage.

a reply to: Gothmog

My first comment was structural failure due to icing long before they said anything about icing. So far I'm at least partially right.