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.

 

Allegations of explosives aboard airlines claims pilot of NorthWest Airlines

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Source




Field McConnell, a pilot for Northwest Airlines, has filed a lawsuit charging that many commercial airliners are rigged with explosives that can be remotely detonated. He refuses to fly until such devices are removed. McConnell's claim is seemingly given credence by none other than Boeing's vice-president, who tacitly admitted the fact in a speech last year.

"The lawsuit, filed last week, claims Boeing Co. and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) can’t assure him that B747-400 planes are safe. McConnell, who is the process of seeking an early retirement from Northwest, claims the planes are rigged by Boeing and can be remotely detonated," reports the West Central Tribune.




BOEING'S VICE PRESIDENT AGREES!!!!!

Now, why would "they" feel the need to have airplanes rigged with explosives?



[edit on 8-3-2007 by dgtempe]




posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Just by chance, Coast to Coast is interviewing the ones bringing the law

suit.

Tune in.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   
That is odd,

maybe its a post 911 strategy.. should planes be taken hostage.. detonate them.. rather than allow them to hit?

alternativley, were these measures in place BEFORE 911?

might explain what happened to the plane over pennsylvania?



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Okay... explosives in the door hatches to pop them out in case of emergency... what ever happened to simply opening the door? It's not like youre popping a canopy open to make way for the ejection seat.

And as for the system that can remotely interface with the plane in case of a hostile take-over of the cockpit... what the hell are they thinking?!
It doesn't take long for hackers to exploit a security vulnerability... it's only a matter of time before someone figures out how to interface with those planes without authorization.
In that case, who needs to hijack the plane, just fly it into a building remotely.

I don't think adding that remote feature is a good idea at all... in fact, it's the complete opposite to a good idea, they have just handed a new hijacking tool over to whomever is willing to pay someone to hack into it.

What happened to simply hiring more air marshals?



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 05:19 AM
link   
I dunno why they just don't install sleeping gas tanks on those planes for just such events as a hijack. Hermetically seal the cabin and case closed, night night for everyone in passenger area.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
I dunno why they just don't install sleeping gas tanks on those planes for just such events as a hijack. Hermetically seal the cabin and case closed, night night for everyone in passenger area.



Thats a stellar idea.

If they put some thought into a plan such as that, they could probably come up with something worth while.

A nice, simple idea. ( with sleep involved, now your talking ).



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Screw it... put everyone to sleep on every flight... it's so damned hard to sleep on planes.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   
The pilot bringing the lawsuit explained on Coast to Coast it was a measure adopted in the late '90's.
The "problem" here is not just the exploding doors (high quality unconventional military style explosives) but also the capability for someone to take full control of the airplane and guide it REMOTELY.

This is a real bombshell. Boeing says in fact all their planes are made that way now- but NO EXPLANATION at all as to WHY.

Pie, i agree with you- Just gas the passengers and save a perfectly good piece of machine.


BTW, these are 747's we're talking about- you know...normal everyday airlines.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
someone to take full control of the airplane and guide it REMOTELY.

This is a real bombshell. Boeing says in fact all their planes are made that way now- but NO EXPLANATION at all as to WHY.

Pie, i agree with you- Just gas the passengers and save a perfectly good piece of machine.




DG
The remote control access is probably in the event something happens to the crew and the plane needs to be landed. If the plane decompresses and everyone passes out maybe?

Well its not to save the plane its to save the passengers. If everyone is knocked out including the hijackers, then no one is gonna get hurt and the plane can't be taken over and flown into a building. The only thing bad I could see out of it would be maybe if someone had a reaction to the sleeping gas. Terrorists can't bring gas masks in a carry-on! LOL



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
The "problem" here is not just the exploding doors (high quality unconventional military style explosives) but also the capability for someone to take full control of the airplane and guide it REMOTELY.


So, planes CAN be controlled remotely? Seams like 9/11 is coming un glued. My theory has always been that the planes were controlled remotely.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   
My husband developed a program years ago to secure the remote vulnerability issue....basically an anti hacker countermeasure for airplanes and other forms of GPS vulnerabilities. We called it Guardian Angel. The government didn't want it, in fact no one wanted it, so it's sitting on a server.

This vulnerability has been around for a long time, We call it cyber terrorism. Someone will eventually pay a hacker to control all sorts of things. Airplanes aren't the only things that can be controlled remotely, anything transmitting processing data can be "misinformed" or "tricked".

*shrug*

Imagine sitting in a parking lot, watching as a bus load of school kids slams into a tractor trailor because someone was controlling the traffic lights......or imagine being pulled over by the police for auto theft because someone hacked your LoJack and reported your own car stolen.....

It can all happen. For some reason no one wants the products that can help prevent it. We've been trying, for years, to get our stuff out there. Every government bid, loans, etc; always turned down. We have people running our regular anti virus product but even that hasn't been put on the market yet as there are still some final things to be done that we have no more funding for.

I know our stuff works, it would eliminate so many problems with IT security, it would also eliminate a lot of capital for other corporations.....so yeah, /I absolutlely believe in government/corporate conspiracy.

I don't know, I think the reasoning for having these things on planes to begin with is because they WANT something to happen. It's more likely that a hacker will expose the vulnerability before the company has the chance to utilize it due to a hijacker.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
first off, pilots can depressurize the cabin, which would knock everyone out so they don't need to actually gas them.

Second, if there are explosives on all planes built since the 90's, why did this guy suddenly stop flying? Wouldn't he have started his boycott back then? Also, if there are explosives on planes, how come they don't all explode when there is a minor crash or runway fire?

I'd think installing explosives would be somewhat dangerous for everyday use but I also think it might explain some of the unexplained air disasters, such as the one over the hamptons. If that plane was equipped with explosives and a malfunction caused it to explode, well, they'd be better off not telling us about the explosives onboard as nobody would fly again.

If it was done as a means of defense after the discovery and subsequent stopping of that plot to hijack and blow up those planes back in the 90's, well, it makes no sense as they were going to blow them all up anyway so why go to the trouble of helping the terrorists?

The only explanation would be that this was done post 9/11 and is a measure taken to avoid the wtc/pentagon type attacks. This makes sense (I don't agree with it tho) but it also totally negates the theory that Bush et al (or other gov't agents) were behind 9/11. If the gov't did it, there wouldn't be a need to put explosives on the planes to avoid another such attack.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Well, i'll just say its "suspicious"- and convenient in more ways than one.

There are basically two reasons for this high grade explosive. One is to do good and the other can be evil.

Due to the nature of our world affairs today, it would not surprise me if it was used in both manners.

There is no grey area here.


CRAKEUR: BOEING HAS ADMITTED THIS WAS DONE IMMEDIATLY AFTER THE OKLAHOMA BOMBING. However, they do not say "WHY"


[edit on 8-3-2007 by dgtempe]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   
oNE MORE THING....


This pilot spoke of all other pilots being very nervous about this situation and he has repeatedly tried to contact Boeing (for years) and they cannot offer an explanation.
Furthermore he claims the passengers lives are in his hands, and as captain of the ship, he does not feel he can continue flying until he gets a response.
Keep in mind his allegations are true and have been verified by Boeing.

He is now suing Boeing et al.

Look, these arent just ordinary run of the mill explosives so the doors can blow open in case of emergency; these are high grade military explosives which HAVE NO BUSSINESS on commercial aircrafts.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
first off, pilots can depressurize the cabin, which would knock everyone out so they don't need to actually gas them.

Second, if there are explosives on all planes built since the 90's, why did this guy suddenly stop flying? Wouldn't he have started his boycott back then? Also, if there are explosives on planes, how come they don't all explode when there is a minor crash or runway fire?

I'd think installing explosives would be somewhat dangerous for everyday use but I also think it might explain some of the unexplained air disasters, such as the one over the hamptons. If that plane was equipped with explosives and a malfunction caused it to explode, well, they'd be better off not telling us about the explosives onboard as nobody would fly again.

If it was done as a means of defense after the discovery and subsequent stopping of that plot to hijack and blow up those planes back in the 90's, well, it makes no sense as they were going to blow them all up anyway so why go to the trouble of helping the terrorists?

The only explanation would be that this was done post 9/11 and is a measure taken to avoid the wtc/pentagon type attacks. This makes sense (I don't agree with it tho) but it also totally negates the theory that Bush et al (or other gov't agents) were behind 9/11. If the gov't did it, there wouldn't be a need to put explosives on the planes to avoid another such attack.


Stop it! You're making too much sense!



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
pilots can depressurize the cabin, which would knock everyone out so they don't need to actually gas them.

YOur making too much sense?
Wouldnt depressurization at 30,000 feet cause many people to die from lack of oxygen?


The only explanation would be that this was done post 9/11 and is a measure taken to avoid the wtc/pentagon type attacks. This makes sense

THis makes NO sense.
What about secure cock-pit doors? That makes sense.
What about NORAD doing its job? That makes sense.
What about transponders that can't be shut off? That makes sense.

Putting explosives on all commercial planes makes no sense what-so-ever, either in a pre- or post-911 world.


it also totally negates the theory that Bush et al (or other gov't agents) were behind 9/11. If the gov't did it, there wouldn't be a need to put explosives on the planes to avoid another such attack.


I dont know if this story is accurate, but assuming it is I have to ask you a simple question.
How does Boeing putting explosives on their planes in any way negate the likelyhood that high ranking members of the M.I.C. were at the very least complicit, and at the very worst cohorts, in the most horrific attack ever on American soil? How do you make such a claim? What process did you use to come to such a conclusion?



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   
11 Bravo- I totally agree with you. Thank you for making sense.

I dont see how this could negate the 9/11 conspiracy (fact) if anything it adds lots more fuel to the fire.

One more "secret" we must deal with. :shk:



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Wouldnt depressurization at 30,000 feet cause many people to die from lack of oxygen?


I didn't say they could depresurrize and kill them, I said knock them out. It can be done without fully depressurizing the cabin. A little while back there was a plane crash with a golfer on board and a plane flew along side the doomed one and noticed everyone was asleep. they later found that the cabin had depressurized and put them to sleep. Pilots can do this without going full on and killing everyone.

with regards to the rest of your post, I was merely pointing out a few different angles here, not taking a side just pointing out things that came to mind. It was a bit rambling and disjointed, which brings me to this:


Originally posted by jbondo
Stop it! You're making too much sense!


even I didn't follow my train of thought too well



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Crakeur, i respect you and your point of view.

These are times when something seeming harmless and helpful can also be used for other purposes.

You know?



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Look, these arent just ordinary run of the mill explosives so the doors can blow open in case of emergency; these are high grade military explosives which HAVE NO BUSSINESS on commercial aircrafts.


I hate to nit pick (because I am with you on the point), BUT high grade military explosives would be the best thing to have on a plane. These are explosives that don't explode when they are bumped, jostled, or even set on fire... Even a catastrophic accident couldn't set these things off. It take's an electric device directly wired to it in order to go off. These primers would have surge protectors built in and the like to make the explosive harmless in 99.999% of accidents. Now the fan fare makes it sound like the planes are wired as bombs ready to go if you cough during take off, which isn't so.

Now the really scary thing is the remote control options. Has this ever been proven to be installed? I don't doubt that the tech is possible, but how do we know it is there? That would scare the pants off me and really seal the 9/11 alligations to me...



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join