Two Clinton Informants Killed In Russian Plane Crash

a reply to: Zaphod58

I didn't say it was the wrong thing to do. I said it was illogical...for the same reasons I mentioned earlier. I understand your reasoning that a pilot is reacting to a potential stall. What I'm questioning is how a pilot might react at 5000 feet versus the same situation at 35,000 feet. You seem to imply it's the same and I'm thinking it's not because your chances of recovering from one at such a low altitude are greatly diminished.

Forgot to add the lack of communication with the control tower in my previous list of all the puzzle pieces we are looking at.

You throw all those things in the mix and consider this is coming out of Russia where Putin can control the information of everything, then yeah.... It looks highly suspicious. I didn't say it wasn't an accident which occurred exactly as you think it did.... But I am saying that there are too many odd things about what has been brought forward for me to just accept the narrative.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

Plus, we all know it's fun to speculate, right?!! I dunno what happened here, but one thing is for sure. This is all very preliminary, and information is very fluid. I'm going to be very interested in seeing what comes out of the investigation, if anything.

TheBorg :-)

a reply to: CIAGypsy

A stall at 5,000 feet is exactly the same as a stall at 35,000 feet. The difference at 5,000 feet is that you try to go shallower on the nose down. If they were in an actual stall situation 5,000 feet is more than sufficient room to recover with a normal situation. This was not a normal situation. The most likely explanation is that they became focused on why their airspeed wasn't coming up, and waited too long.

I've done spins in unpowered aircraft that started at 2,000 feet, and had no problem not only recovering, but getting back up higher than we started at within a couple minutes. His peak altitude was something like 6800 feet. Under normal conditions, and if he followed his backup airspeed indicator, that would have given him several minutes to recover.

I've been following this in the pilot community and most pilots don't see anything unusual about it. Just because you may not understand what they did, or why it happened, doesn't mean it's suspicious.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

Your link didn't work for me. Try this one.

Weird how the topic became pilot error over how were the two singled-out victims connected to the dirty and crooked Clinton's?
Why suffer a planeload of "collateral damage"?

On April 3, 1996;
The final Air Force investigation attributed the crash to pilot error and a poorly designed landing approach.

"Responding to homicide allegations, an official of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology acknowledged that doctors initially were puzzled by a circular wound on the top of Brown's head when his remains were recovered at the crash scene. The forensic pathologist then consulted with others and took extensive X-rays. As a result of these consultations and full-body X-rays, we absolutely ruled out anything beyond a blunt-force injury to the head."[5]
Of specific concern was a trip Brown had made to Vietnam on behalf of the Clinton Administration.

future proves past
X = Y+Z

a reply to: loveguy

Reading that link you posted for collateral damage. Ron Brown. I just read his wiki.

So he is caught up in a scandal where the democrats highjacked the commerce department and were selling seats on government planes for donations?

Then during the scandal he dies in a government plane crash?

Clinton's are gangster eh?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

They are corrupt heartless (insult).

Bill and Hillary's 'friends' fall off buildings, crash planes, die in freak accidents, and so much more.

Interesting coincidences.

I dont know too many people that have like 40 people die under strange circumstances around them.

Im being absurd though.....

a reply to: loveguy

Because it makes so much more sense that somehow the Clintons managed to get someone into Russia to sabotage a plane, kill a plane load of people to eliminate two, and get the Russian government to cover it up, than it was a simple case of pilot error. That makes so much more sense than a car accident, or s robbery gone wrong.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Of specific concern was a trip Brown had made to Vietnam on behalf of the Clinton Administration

I was gonna look for it myself, how about maybe you lend a hand?

a reply to: CIAGypsy

Well, after a little more research, it turns out there's a tiny flaw in the conspiracy here.

Here's the passenger manifest in Russian. The first column is the name, the second is date of birth.

We're looking specifically at passenger 32. ИВАНОВ Вячеслав Анатольевич. (IVANOV Vyacheslav Anatolyevich) He's supposed to be the CFO of Rosatom and was going to testify against Hillary. Right?

Except, when we go to his DoB, we see 22.06.1986. In 1986, the IVANOV that is the CFO of Rosatom was in college.

As for Sergei Millian, of dossier fame, his name is not on the manifest, and there's no proof that he used Panchenko as an alias

a reply to: CIAGypsy

Truth does not always come out. 1000's of unsolved murder and crimes every year. We rest on this idea, it gives us peace from the harsh reality.

a reply to: CIAGypsy


The simple answer is that if the airspeed is too low, one lowers the nose. If it is too high, one raises the nose. But why he would turn off the A/P if it was functioning is a bit odd to me.

As to Air Data Computers, every jet I've ever flown has two of those, so that if one fails, you switch to the other.

I'm still curious as to what the actual weather was...

a reply to: Salander

Google is your friend.

Metars Data.

Commerse Dept.

Secretary Brown died on a trade mission to Croatia, when the government plane he was on flew into a mountainside on April 3 in the 1996 Croatia USAF CT-43 crash.[7] This led to conservative accusations that Clinton had Brown murdered; U. S. Attorney General Janet Reno and others scoffed at this conspiracy theory.[8] Soon after, Nolanda Hill declared that she had been engaging in a long-running affair with Brown.[9]
The trade missions controversy became more visible in 1996 as an outgrowth of the 1996 United States campaign finance controversy and investigations of Democratic fundraiser John Huang.[4] It thusly became an issue during the United States presidential election, 1996,[4] in which Clinton was nevertheless re-elected.
In November 1996, independent counsel Daniel Pearson reported: "My office's investigation of Secretary Brown ended unfinished with his death. The unfinished state of the investigation and considerations of fairness preclude our office from drawing conclusions about the allegations regarding possible criminal conduct by the Secretary.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

yeah no

a reply to: CIAGypsy And the Clintons strike again. This is why the Clintons are not in prison, because if you are going to testify against the Clintons you will not live long enough to name anyone involved let alone see it go to court.
The Clinton's were crooked in Arkansas, the Clinton's were crooked in the White House and the Clinton's are bad news for America and it's not just Bill and Hillary. It goes way back before them. It goes beyond the drug cartel and the whitewater coverup and the deaths due to murder. It's the Clinton way. That's how they take care of things and I hope that people have enough sense to never trust a Clinton, nor vote Hillary into office.

a reply to: GoldenUnicorn

Well, except for the minor fact that one of them was too young, and there was zero evidence of the other being on the plane.

But why let that stop anything.