American Airlines Infiltrated By Terrorists?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I was sitting here talking to my family and we were talking about the grounding of all these flight by American Airlines. I think there is a big disinfo campaign in regards to this. The excuse is that some wiring pack is near fuel lines on these planes.

But here is my question why arent those same planes being grounded by other companies?

American Airlines outsources their servicing to Mexico and other places where they are lax on background checks. My feeling is terroists infiltrated the serving station and rigged an American Airlines plane or two.

These planes are 15 years old why is this and issue now? There havent been any crashes so what brought this up? Once again why only American Airlines flights?

The government would have strong reason to keep this on the down low because if it got out that our planes were rigged by terrorists you would have to put the nail in the coffin on the industry. I never fly anyways if I can drive to the place. I have never trusted planes and I understand the argument your more likely to die in a car. But when they outsource to places who dont check the people who are servicing your planes that is a scary though and all to save the airliners a little more money to put in CEOs pockets.

I feel there is a big disinfo campaign on this and this really is scary. Please give me your thoughts.




posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Wow.....thanks for that. I hadn't even considered the possibility, but now that you mention it.....

From what I've seen in the media, the entire brouhaha is apparently based on something incredibly trivial and not likely to be a problem. Something about "zip" fasteners not being spaced the exact 1" apart that the FAA requires.

What are they looking for on those planes? American Airlines had to have taken a huge hit in revenues this past week.....was the loss of income really worth looking at some wire bundle?



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I completely agree. I think there is more to the story and the OP has made some very good points. Here is another thread with a different take. Either way, it seems an awful lot of expense and trouble for something that could be done during routine maintenence checks. Either someone is covering their ass or making a strategic move for more power.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
The ties were recently redone on some of their airplanes, and they were done the way it was THOUGHT they were supposed to be done, not the way the BOOK said to do it. If they are not placed exactly 1" apart, there is a chance that the wiring will hang down. If it hangs down the nose landing gear will catch it and rip the wiring. It happened recently on an American Airlines flight (funny that the reason they've been grounded actually happened). American did not choose to ground their planes this way. The FAA ORDERED them to ground all their MD-80s and do the inspections instead of letting them pull a few at a time, return them to service, pull a few more. The reason the FAA did this was to make an example to the public that they were doing something and taking this seriously. American is one of the few airlines that can do this and survive right now.

I notice that everyone is completely ignoring the fact that this all started with Southwest and their 737s. Then there was the first grounding where American WAS allowed to pull them a few at a time, and Delta was grounding them too. Then there were the United 747s that sat for a couple of days while records were checked, and their 52 777s that were grounded.

Let's think about this for half a second here. Which makes a better weapon, the 747 that can hold 500 people and is massive, the 777 that is almost as big and holds 350+, or the MD-80 that is a tiny narrowbody that holds about 130. How come no one has bothered to accuse United, Delta, or Southwest of being infiltrated by terrorists?

Maybe because none of them are? (not even American).



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Or it could be a move to justify the new boarding methodology in use in the thread below in my sig. I think a ton of lies are being spread on this very topic and some digging needs to be done on every angle.

The simple fact that the SouthWest CTO has moved to the same position in the TSA is a clear indication something is going on.

These planes had no reason to be grounded when no one else in the industry is grounding or checking the same models.

The whole air industry has the stink of two day old fish right now.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If they are not placed exactly 1" apart, there is a chance that the wiring will hang down. If it hangs down the nose landing gear will catch it and rip the wiring. [Snip] Which makes a better weapon, the 747 that can hold 500 people and is massive, the 777 that is almost as big and holds 350+, or the MD-80 that is a tiny narrowbody that holds about 130.


They performed the maintenance and repair once already. We don't know how far apart the fasteners are actually placed.....1.2"? .89"? No one has said the fasteners are 6" or some such thing.

As far as better weapons? They all make pretty damn good weapons. This isn't hand to hand combat.....the greatest effect sought by terrorists is cultural, political, and psychological. An MD-80 hitting a full baseball stadium is much more effective than a 747 auguring into a cornfield somewhere in Nebraska. The question is too simplistic to answer without considering the different parameters.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by MrPenny]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
And how many airlines even FLY the MD-80? Just because a plane LOOKS like an MD-80 doesn't mean that it IS.

Let me help you out a little here. In the United States, for major operators we have:

American Airlines (300)
Delta Airlines (117)
Allegiant Airlines (36)
Alaska Airlines (9)
Midwest (13)
Continental and Northwest have already retired almost all of their MD-80s.

Wow! That's a lot of airlines that operate them. Delta and American have BOTH grounded their MD-80s, but American is by FAR the largest operator of them. Alaska and Allegiant PROBABLY kept their records up to date and did their wiring properly and have kept up on inspections. Especially Alaska. They got hammered for this same thing after they lost an MD-80 off California killing everyone on board, most of whom were airline employees.



It is that process which has come under fire at American and is blamed by many pilots for the second MD-80 grounding, says Kevin Cornwell, an American MD-80 pilot from Keller, Tex. "In no way is this a line-mechanic problem. This is a management problem."

At American's Apr. 10 news conference, Arpey said that interpreting an FAA airworthiness directive involves "a great deal of judgment" and that even FAA engineers can disagree about the proper method for certain repairs or changes.

Source

Every single airline on that list, has been grounding their MD-80s over the last week. Alaska has returned 8 of theirs to service, the 9th was undergoing unrelated maintenance.

Midwest has already returned their 13 to service.

Allegiant had already inspected their aircraft.

Delta grounded several to recheck them and were expected to have them back in service last night or today.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58


Good analysis Zaphod. I completely agree with you. The CEO actuallly came right out and said "I take full responsibility for this problem", which is an extraordinary statement for a CEO to make. But it also shows that management, not on-line mechanics, is responsible for this mess.

I do believe in alot of conspiracies, but not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes, a cigar really is just a cigar and nothing more.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


They are supposed to be enclosed in a plastic sheath that is a MINIMUM of 4 inches long at that particular spot. When the FAA Auditors inspected 19 American MD-80s, something like 13 of them had sheathing that was less than 4 inches. Some were 3.7, others were 3.8. That means that even though it was CLOSE to 4 inches, that plane is not airworthy. The spacing and direction of the ties was also inconsistant, which means that the work was done in a hurry, and sloppy.

As for using an MD-80 as a weapon, you say they all make good weapons, which I agree with. But it's just as easy to get your weapons or modifications done to that 747 sitting in the next bay over, that's going to be flying from LAX to Germany, crossing the entire US, as it is to get it on that MD-80 that's going to be flying the shorter route.

But the question as it was brought up would be more along the lines of slipping a bomb or remote system onto the plane, in which case it WOULD make more sense to slip a terrorist cell in, and rig that 747 or 777 that carries a LOT more fuel, is MUCH more massive, and has a LOT more people on board. You get more carnage at impact from the fuel and fire, more people killed because you have more on the plane to begin with, etc.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I read that they were supposed to put fasteners every 12 inches, but they misinterpreted the manual, thinking it was a misprint. They put the fasteners 1 inch apart which threw the whole apparatus off. Instead of calling the FAA to ask for clarification, which would have been very easy, they just did it the way they THOUGHT it should be done, with no real good reason for doing that, at least not that I've read anywhere.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
While I appreciate Zaphod's excellent breakdown and he may well be right, I have to agree with Mr. Penny that there are psychological and financial factors that would likely have outweighed the "safety" need to ground all of these planes at once - Especially in an industry where companies are going under every week these days and Americans are fed up with delays and outrageous security checks. Whose to say that there is not a pervasive concern regarding the servicing of all of these type planes by third parties?



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
While I appreciate Zaphod's excellent breakdown and he may well be right, I have to agree with Mr. Penny that there are psychological and financial factors that would likely have outweighed the "safety" need to ground all of these planes at once


The ONLY reason American was forced to ground their aircaft all at once was because the FAA had to prove they were taking this seriously. They were hammered hard at congressional hearings over the Southwest incident, and they have to prove to the flying public and Congress that they were taking this very seriously, and they were making sure the inspections were done right.

Many FAA inspectors were working with the same airlines for years at a time, so they got close, and let them slide. It would start out with little things, then get worse. That's what happened with Southwest. They were flying something like 46 737s that were not compliant with an Airworthiness Directive because their FAA inspector let them slide. That's what caused the Congressional hearing, and all the media attention.

If you noticed, the FIRST round of groundings, both Delta and American were allowed to pull them a few at a time. But from what I've heard American verified that several of their aircraft were passing, and when the FAA went in and looked the wiring sheath was just under 4 inches, so the Auditor failed something like 13 that they looked at, that American had passed. They looked at American's financial situation, realized that while they are going to take a big hit, it's not going to push them over the edge, and required them to gruond all their aircraft immediately to redo the inspections, while allowing the others to pull them a few at a time.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

I notice that everyone is completely ignoring the fact that this all started with Southwest and their 737s. Then there was the first grounding where American WAS allowed to pull them a few at a time, and Delta was grounding them too. Then there were the United 747s that sat for a couple of days while records were checked, and their 52 777s that were grounded.



Not Ignoring just was unaware that this was happening with other companies and their planes. It didnt hit the media like this has probably because of volume of planes.


Let's think about this for half a second here. Which makes a better weapon, the 747 that can hold 500 people and is massive, the 777 that is almost as big and holds 350+, or the MD-80 that is a tiny narrowbody that holds about 130. How come no one has bothered to accuse United, Delta, or Southwest of being infiltrated by terrorists?

Maybe because none of them are? (not even American).



Size of plane doesnt matter as far as people...there are no people inside a small nuke weapon but if it hits a city we are in trouble. Im not worried about the fuel on the plane and the people on board im concerned about small planes with a small bio weapon on board crashing into a big city. As far as accusing the others who knows they may very well have issues because not many of the companies do servicing here in the states where there is background checks on the people. Maybe none of them are but in a post 9/11 world I trust no one and take no chances and I dont want to see any more excuses to go invade other countries.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by mybigunit]

[edit on 12-4-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


All the information in the media is info that was fed to them by the government....thats why this is in the disinfo thread because it could easily be disinformation given to save the behinds of big air and save the compitency of the FAA which I dont think is a good organization. Ive seen other posts of yours zaphoid and I know you know your crap when it comes to planes a hell of a lot more than me. But like I said after the government let 9/11 happen and all the invasions and proposed invasions I would rather not leave stuff like this to chance....let people know so they can make decisions on their own.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
One of the things that hasn't been pointed out is that fact that when it comes to MD-80 maintenance American has one of the best crews in the business. Other airlines fly their planes to American Airlines maintenance facilities, and contract them to perform their higher level inspections, because they get them done efficiently with a minimum of down time.

In 2006 the American Airlines maintenance division earned them $95 million dollars, and that's expected to be more like $175 million for last year. That's in contracts from other airlines. Now other airlines generally don't ask you to check their planes over if you have a record of shoddy maintenance.

In 2005, American only outsourced 20% of their maintenance, and NONE of their major tear downs.

Let's look at the other major airlines:

Northwest- Widebodies to Singapore and Hong Kong
Jet Blue and America West send their planes to El Salvadore
United Airlines- 777s to Beijing for heavy maintenance


Other airlines outsource almost 50% of their maintenance. The work done on the 777s for United includes stripping the planes down to bare frame, and going over every inch of airframe, every rivet, everything.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Kudos to you. Originality is not common here on ATS now a days. While I don't agree wit theory, its a good one at that.

[edit on 4/12/2008 by AndrewTB]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
when it comes to MD-80 maintenance American has one of the best crews in the business.


Now I'm confused....previously, I thought you had offered the opinion that the maintenance and repair work on the wiring harness had been done in a hurried and shoddy manner. So how did maintenance practices considered best in the business become subject to such intense scrutiny?


No one, including the FAA, is saying that any of these planes were unsafe to fly. But rather than allow American to ground a few planes at a time and phase in the fixes and re-inspections (as it had done just two weeks earlier), the FAA chose to ground all the planes at once. Source


Over a quarter million passengers affected, no telling how much lost productivity to business travelers.....all over a sheath that may have been .2" to .3" short? That's 2 to 3 tenths of an inch. Roughly, this.....much space.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by MrPenny]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58


Let's look at the other major airlines:

Northwest- Widebodies to Singapore and Hong Kong
Jet Blue and America West send their planes to El Salvadore
United Airlines- 777s to Beijing for heavy maintenance


Other airlines outsource almost 50% of their maintenance. The work done on the 777s for United includes stripping the planes down to bare frame, and going over every inch of airframe, every rivet, everything.


And to me this is scary. I know some of them send their planes to Mexico including American Airlines too which is where I feel the infiltration happened. The terrorists in the governments own words (not that I trust them) have said that terrorists are trying to get into mexico. If they did infiltrate and get to working at the shop and did happen to slip or had intentions to me doesnt seem far fetched. It really makes me concerned when they take one or two planes in at a time then all of a sudden bringing them in large numbers. Why the urgency. FAA wanted to act serious? Since when....the FAA have been laxed since they were founded and all the FAA boys getting paid vacations from airlines CEOs does not help the matter. I feel it became serious because we got more credible evidence. Once again you could totally be right Zaphoid sometimes a duck is actually a duck but I dont know somthing smells here and if you check out previous posts and knew me personally Im pretty good at calling this crap out long before it happens or the actual truth comes out. Im glad your hear because I am learning from you .



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Ok.........I just read and replyed to another thread abou America "torturing TERRORISTS.Now as far as this thread goes...............Why is it that people(esspecially ATS) attach a conspiracy to every thing that the government has to do with.Why cant it just be what it is-misplaced wires and the federal government doing their job and protecting its citizens.What proof do you have to back up this RIDICULOUS claim?None..I thought so,and someone (Mr.Penny I think)said something like" is the faulty wiring that big of a deal?"YEA IT IS,if you want to fly and not crash.......so I think it is WELL WORTH the airline industry lossing money-lives are more important.Also someone else said the wiring being as far apart as it is isnt that big of a deal-do you have some aerospace engineering background or do you have any professional degree that would make you an expert on airplanes?

Yea America outsources.........ALOT of countries do.....what does that have to do with terrorists in Mexico?Or any other country we outsource to for that matter-the same security is taken everywhere-as far as certain countries not following all the saftey protocol-yea your ABSOLUTLY right,that IS a problem hat needs to be addressed that has NOTHING to do with terrorist.Someone also stated what would be a better weapon-a 737 or the planes that are grounded that holds much less people,he is right why would terrorist want a smaller plane AND why would they want to rig the plane to blow up BEFORE reaching its destination?

Anyways I just think people are way to quick to place a "government conspiracy"tag on things,being parnoid WITH SOME EVIDENCE is good,but being paranoid without it just cause you "have a feeling"the government is lying is obsurd.I know ATS is for "alternate"topics,but it is taken way to far by some.IMO

-JKrog



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


I said APPEARED to be done in a hurried and shoddy manner, because the ties were not all going in the same way, like they should have been. But you can have the best crew in the business, and the guy that does the wiring was having a bad week. Let's say that his wife just left him, and he's thinking about how he's gonna pay for the divorce, and not lose everything he owns. His mind is going to be on other things while he's working, and then maybe he hears about a few extra shifts, so he volunteers for them, works some overtime, doesn't sleep well because his mind is going 500mph, gets tired, makes more msitakes..... Just because a few people make mistakes doesn't mean the entire team is at fault.

As for the space, the reason why this is so important is that if the wire bundle isn't covered and held up right the nose gear can rip it apart. If that happens you're going to have various problems that can cause an accident. A few tenths of an inch doesn't seem like much, but what if a something hit the landing gear, and caused a little piece of metal to stick off. When the gear retracts, that little burr is just past the end of the sheath, and rubs the wire. Every time it goes up or down, or shifts in the well, it rubs a wire. Eventually it can short, or even cut that wire. Yes that is an extreme and very unlikely situation, but it could happen.

These ADs as I pointed out earlier, even the FAA inspectors have trouble figuring out exactly what they're looking for. One inspector may say 3.8 is acceptable, while others say 3.8 isn't.





top topics
 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join