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.
Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post COOL HAND. No center tank fuel pump on any Boeing 747 ever ignited fumes and caused an explosion in any center tank of any Boeing 747. It was a ridiculous explanation. Couldn't have happened. Didn't happen. Wouldn't happen. No possible way could it happen.
When the government intially proposed the planned coverup Boeing first said no. Then the government said, how about just limiting the fuel pump story to just 100 series 747's and we'll let you merge with McDonnell Douglas? Boeing then agreed.
That fuel tank fairy tale was a government sponsered ruse to cover up the accidental shooting down of TWA Flight 800 by the U.S. Navy. I believe that it was the 5th civilian airliner accidentally shot down by the Navy. The first one being the Flying Tigers Constellation full of marines headed for Viet Nam in 1963 over Guam. A Navy fighter was using the Connie for target practice and accidentally let loose some live rounds. Everybody on board was killed. And the U.S. Navy went into maximum cover-up mode as they did after TWA Flight 800.
Heck, they let ME fly for over 40 years. What does that say for their 'weeding out'.
Alright john, here is your chance to shine. You could, potentially, be the first person to ever show irrefutable proof the US Navy did it on this (or any other) website. I have asked for this kind of info before, and no one has coughed anything up.
Originally posted by johnlear
Uh, don't hold your breath COOL HAND, this may take some time. Know what I mean?
Originally posted by johnlearThanks for the post COOL HAND, and SHINE I will. First let me prove the Fleet 21 computerized battleship and nuclear powered 70 foot Fast Attack Sub are operational and then I have to prove a breathable atmopshere on the moon and then I'll get right straight to proving the the U.S. Navy shot down TWA Flight 800.
Uh, don't hold your breath COOL HAND, this may take some time. Know what I mean?
Originally posted by buddhasystem
why the evil Boeing risked its reputation, spent millions, all to protect the (now dead) nutty jealous pilot??
Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm just saying, when you disagree with someone (you may disagree with me) it would elevate the discussion if there was less sarcasm.
sidebar: are you ever offended when others respond to you and refer to you as 'BS'? Just wondering...
Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by tezzajw
You seem to imply that the pilot was employed by Boeing? What was that connection?
You know, the situation is somewhat akin to a teenager speeding in a Camaro and crashing into a lamp post, killing all aboard. Chevrolet then steps in and claims that it was a faulty link in the steering system just to cover it up, at huge expense. Does it make any sense to you?
Originally posted by buddhasystem
You seem to imply that the pilot was employed by Boeing? What was that connection?
You know, the situation is somewhat akin to a teenager speeding in a Camaro and crashing into a lamp post, killing all aboard. Chevrolet then steps in and claims that it was a faulty link in the steering system just to cover it up, at huge expense. Does it make any sense to you?
After the attacks, media pointed out that one of the school's hangars was also the location of Britannia Aviation, a possible CIA front that listed no employees or licensing, and had assets totalling only $750 yet had been listed as awarded multi-million dollar contracts in order to operate. Its only known employee was named Paul Marten.[4]
Owner Rudi Dekkers gave conflicting reports after the attacks, once claiming that he knew both students were on terrorist watchlists, and that they were alleged to be planning to use planes as weapons.[5]
Originally posted by tezzajw
Boeing, along with the airline industry would suffer if it was true that pilot suicide was more common than officially reported.
When you consider that Boeing are one of the biggest players in the airline industry, I think that they would have a vested interest in any crash of their planes, regardless of which airline the plane was registered to.
It's nothing at all like that. A Boeing plane carries hundreds of paying passengers who trust the pilot. Pilots are supposed to be weeded out to the point where only the best people fly them.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Look, if you are saying that it is profitable for Boeing to advertise the fact that they developed a faulty product (all in the face of cuththroat competition!), whereas the accident could have been a human error, I must confess that I don't follow such logic.
According to you, Boeing should have stepped in after the 9/11 and announce that it was faulty avionics that guided the planes into the WTC towers and there were no hijackers of any sort. All because of the Boeings "vested interest" in such impossible coverups.
Originally posted by tezzajwYou don't follow the logic, as judging by your posts in the past month or so
Afterall, this is a conspiracy website and you seem to rely mainly on what your physics PhD taught you
I work in a sector where I see lies told on a daily basis.
Originally posted by johnlear
As far as the fabricated yaw damper theory for UAL585 and Flight USAIR487 the damage that would have been done to the airline industry if the truth were told would have been incalculable. Surely you must agree with that.
After the crash, there was substantial speculation that the pilot deliberately crashed the aircraft in a mass homicide/suicide...
...The pilot suicide theory and controversy is very similar to that of EgyptAir Flight 990.
Flight data showed that the flight controls were used to move the elevators in order to initiate and sustain the steep dive...
...The cockpit voice recorder recorded the First Officer repeating "I rely on God" eleven times while the Captain asked repeatedly "What is this?" during the dive.