It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A Call comes in to the San Luis Obispo County, California Sherrif's Office citing a small plane crash in the mountains of southern California. Detective Bill Wammock is the first to arrive on the scene. He recalls “nothing that resembled an airliner... we went on for hours, before we heard the news reports of a missing airliner, believing that we were dealing with a small airplane full of newspapers that had crashed. We saw no pieces of the aircraft that were larger than, maybe, a human hand. It did not look like a passenger aircraft.”
. . .
The sound of the gunshot is picked up on the cockpit voice recorder, and seconds later the sound of the cockpit door opening is heard. A female, presumed to be a Flight Attendant, advises the cockpit crew that “we have a problem.” The Captain replies with “what kind of problem?” Burke then appears at the cockpit door and announces “I'm the problem,” simultaneously firing two more shots that fatally injure both pilots.
Several seconds later, the CVR picks up increasing windscreen noise as the airplane pitches down and begins to accelerate. A final gunshot is heard as Burke fatally shoots himself. Airspeed continues to build until 13,000 feet, when traveling at a velocity of 1.2x Mach, the aircraft breaks apart and the Flight Recorders cease functioning.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Several seconds later, the CVR picks up increasing windscreen noise as the airplane pitches down and begins to accelerate.
No big pieces found there, either.
Originally posted by AgentSmith
Not really, I showed before that if you compare various crashes from an air disaster database with the FAA records you often have aircraft continuing for long periods of time as 'active', like all massive databases it's pretty useless.
The problem is that people are quick to make such assumptions and statements without actually checking to see if the same anomolies can be observed in relation to 'ordinary' incidents. It's a fine example of the lack of research in putting together 9/11 conspiracy evidence, one of the first things you are taught at school when conducting experiments is to have a 'control' yet this does not seem to happen. The majority of the time if someone does bother to do this they'll notice that the data they think of as evidence is too inaccurate to be conclusive.
[edit on 7-5-2006 by AgentSmith]