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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Crakeur
pilots can depressurize the cabin, which would knock everyone out so they don't need to actually gas them.
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
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.
Originally posted by 11Bravo
Wouldnt depressurization at 30,000 feet cause many people to die from lack of oxygen?
Originally posted by jbondo
Stop it! You're making too much sense!
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.