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.

 

Prison Plane canceled landing on Sola airport Norway

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Arriving from Bucuresti Romania the MD 82, N937AS had planned to land on Sola airport on the west coast of Norway to refuel Thursday this week. But the plane canceled the landing probably because of the attention the planes have caused. The plane probably went to Scotland and then to the US.

The plane belongs to Alameda Corp Trustee who also own N822US mentioned in another thread.

Link to norwegian article(not translated) web3.aftenbladet.no...




posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Sir do you mind if I inquire why you put the title of this thread as “Prison Plane”, you did not offer any explanation or evidence to support such. I do not think you should jump to conclusions, unless I am missing something it looks like you are doing just that.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Sir do you mind if I inquire why you put the title of this thread as “Prison Plane”, you did not offer any explanation or evidence to support such. I do not think you should jump to conclusions, unless I am missing something it looks like you are doing just that.

He doesnt need to, freedom of speech allows spin and twisting of words.

Infact if you look hard enough or even dont focus on looking at newspaper articles you can usually guess on what side they are on.



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 02:55 AM
link   
There seems to be quite a few new posters doing these types of things recently... Anyone else noticing this besides me?



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 03:24 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
This "Prison Plane" was owned by Alameda Corporation, who also owned an american prison plane that landed on Sola earlier this year. I believe that, amongst other things, would give the poster a good reason to use the phrase "Prison plane" in the header



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Sir do you mind if I inquire why you put the title of this thread as “Prison Plane”, you did not offer any explanation or evidence to support such. I do not think you should jump to conclusions, unless I am missing something it looks like you are doing just that.

He doesnt need to, freedom of speech allows spin and twisting of words.

Infact if you look hard enough or even dont focus on looking at newspaper articles you can usually guess on what side they are on.



Exactly. These days its the seriousness of the charge that matters. Not the facts.



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   

There seems to be quite a few new posters doing these types of things recently... Anyone else noticing this besides me?


No I have noticed it too, and it’s sad because most of them, not all, just post BS that do nothing but bait people into a mud pit. What's that line again, don't ever challenge an idiot because he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.


Exactly. These days its the seriousness of the charge that matters. Not the facts.


Sad, it kind of reminds me of the dark ages.


I believe that, amongst other things, would give the poster a good reason to use the phrase "Prison plane" in the header


Absolutely not, I know the reason he put that in the title, and it has nothing to do with Alameda Corporation. See my above post about not jumping to conclusions.

[edit on 25-12-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northern Norway
Arriving from Bucuresti Romania the MD 82, N937AS had planned to land on Sola airport on the west coast of Norway to refuel Thursday this week. But the plane canceled the landing probably because of the attention the planes have caused. The plane probably went to Scotland and then to the US.



Lets look at the facts here.

1. The plane did not land, yet assume it was carrying prisoners? :shk:
For all anyone knows the plane could have been carrying Gerbils



2 Then the plane probably went on to Scotland? How do you know that? That seems like a lot of assumption on the part of the Newspaper and you.


[edit on 12/25/2005 by shots]



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   
It is funny how much things change over a few months.


I remember the first time I saw Norway reporting these flights, 6 months ago. The member reaction was very different.

ATS members began researching the facts of the matter, and posting links to back up their data (even if some of it was errant). Judging from some of those posts, the membership highly approves of this type of posting.

Now members just post catch phrases of "twisting words" and "jumping to conclusions", without adding any research/information to the discussion. I suppose that nobody has the time for that anymore.

It's kind of sad really.


Norway,

Thank you for your post.
I like that you can post news (from your part of the world) that we normally would not be aware of.




posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   
According to the FAA, Registry N937AS is assigned to a MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC-9-82(MD-82). The Registered Owner is ALAMEDA CORP TRUSTEE C/O JETRAN INTERNATIONAL LTD.

It has a one month Temporary Certificate
Number T058146
Issue Date.........12/13/2005
Expiration Date 01/12/2006


I found a post that indicates it was ferried to Bucharest, Romania around Feb. 2005. It had been stored in Marana, US since Apr. 2004 when Alaska Airlines returned it to its lessor (ALAMEDA CORP).

If you previously read Norways first thread you already know about Alameda Corp. /Jetran International.

In addition, there is a pretty good overview/history of the suspected rendition flights using the Sola and Oslo airports a number of times over the last few years.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I recall the earlier thread, and there was mention of a admission that the plane was carrying suspects. So, not technically prisoners, although if they can't leave, then the term fits. I was curious how 'suspects' could be moved from country to country covertly, since they are not yet convicted. But, anyway, I mainly wanted to say that if these flights have been a pattern, and have happened a few times, and the operators admitted carrying 'prisoners', then without anything more to go on, due to the secretive nature of the flights, it is not that much of a stretch to say this one was the same. It very well may not have been. In fact, did anyone see the passengers that were alleged to having been onboard as claimed? I am just making the point that the explanation itself could be suspect, and just a cover story in case anyone got nosy.
In theory though, it is a good idea to limit speculation without evidence, and this is a case where any evidence of anything other than these sneaky flights happening is not known.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by makeitso
Now members just post catch phrases of "twisting words" and "jumping to conclusions", without adding any research/information to the discussion. I suppose that nobody has the time for that anymore.

Well let me ask how do they know who or what was on the plane?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join