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.

 

Reinhardt believes something is very suspicious about the recent plane crash

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
These are his reasons why the plane crash is suspicious


1. Timing

2. How could it have been propagandized?

3. BofA as a symbol of patriotism

4. BofA workers as symbols of patriotism

5. B of “America” as a symbol of patriotism

(now they have gone and attacked the American economy)

6. Midnight bailout same night of mishap?

7. Financial sympathy to financial victim would make sense

8. Reference to Lewis helicopter as phony (but real) connection

(why would the state=media throw out a BofA/Lewis conspiracy angle?)

9. Tough trading day for BofA hours before crash

10. No groups claim responsibility?

11. (Irony) national sympathy for a global institution that just robbed the middle class

12. Kappa Beta Phi the week before

13. Lame-Duck session

14. Obama needs memorable repeatable statement (ask not.. only fear..) Tuesday

15. USAService.org

16. The mere attempt to turn a bank into a symbol of patiotism

17. engines sitting at bottom of river

18. unlikely survival (extraordinary piloting skills)

19. follow the fate of the employee passengers

20. was there a plan b?

21. both engines

22. a boom “three minutes” into flight



there is something wrong with the story



[edit on 16-1-2009 by SpaceMonkeys]
www.enterprisecorruption.com

[edit on 16-1-2009 by SpaceMonkeys]




posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Wow this is rubbish, how could there be a conspiracy, I mean some birds were taken into the engine and the plane lost power, both engines are now missing what's the big deal, the key pieces of evidence besides the flight recorder, I don't see any reason for a conspiracy at all.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Why has everything to be a conspiracy?
I myself was on a plane that had lifted off and dropped height in a second, people screamed and we had to return to the ground. Accordingly to Ryanair (the airline), a bird had entered one of the engines.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by phinubian
Wow this is rubbish, how could there be a conspiracy, I mean some birds were taken into the engine and the plane lost power, both engines are now missing what's the big deal, the key pieces of evidence besides the flight recorder, I don't see any reason for a conspiracy at all.

maybe you're right, im just throwing this up in the air from the guy who hasnt been wrong yet.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaceMonkeys
 


I believe, and you can write this down as an official "prediction/announcement/whathaveyou", that applying that same set of criteria to any unexplained event can lead people like those who buy into "Reinhardt's" "predictions" to the conclusion that EVERYTHING ON THIS EARTH is a part of the grand conspiracy.

Sometimes you gotta call a spade a spade. There are numerous accounts of bird strikes bringing down aircraft.

That being said, if someone has video of a purple beam hitting the engines just before it went down, I would love to see it, and I may jump on board.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Sweeeeeeeet, now the NWO people
can control geese or the geese are working for them...we can't win if the animals are against us too.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaceMonkeys
 


I am being totally sarcastic, when I heard MSNBC flash breaking news that sonar is being used to find the engine(S) they are both missing I could not help but wonder, what are the chances, but I could imagine that the force of water pressure on the landing might have taken them completely off, because I believe at the time it hit the water they were intact, it shouldn't be difficult to find them since they have a really good idea of the landing path.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaceMonkeys
 


I think you are putting conspiracy theory on the same level of idiocy, thus making fools of us sane members here.

Go back to watching and bunking the " magic roundabout " cos your comments are insane I think.

Respect and no malice intended

AF

[edit on 16-1-2009 by albertfothergill]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
thank so much for posting this! i was ridiculed earlier today for this thread here where i raised the question of this being a false flag, i still am not decided on that but i do think there is much strangeness here. Coming from Reinhardt, it makes the whole idea seem more credible.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enigma Publius
thank so much for posting this! i was ridiculed earlier today for this thread here where i raised the question of this being a false flag, i still am not decided on that but i do think there is much strangeness here. Coming from Reinhardt, it makes the whole idea seem more credible.

yeah seems like im getting ridicule for just posting reinhardts opinion, just look at the comment above. Im not saying i belive its a conspiracy its just that reinhardt has deemed this suspicious so i thought it would be a good idea to post a thread about it.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
They'll find them somewhat behind what is left of the wings, as surely those came off as well.

This is bogus, imo.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I understand the engine mounting bolts are designed to shear off during an impact with water.


Reported as such by ABC news a couple of times and noted by their aviation expert as a good idea that paid off in this instance.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
AS a pilot myself to see this is great! It was luck and a good pilot, period.

Why this whole story is a conspiracy is beyond me.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Missing engines stall US Airways Hudson river crash probe



THE investigation into the US Airways Airbus crash into New York's Hudson River has been hampered by the loss of both engines in the river and the inability to reach the plane's black box, officials say.

www.news.com.au...

Just thought it might add to the thread!



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I don't think they could possibly design them any other way.

The engines would undoubtedly be the first things to go. Then the wings.
The rest would remain in tact, unless the landing gear was down.

This type of landing would be VERY abrupt, any extremities would shear off immediately, starting with the engines.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by albertfothergill
 


Yes, he was extremely lucky he had a river he could veer into.

Otherwise, they would have all died.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I don't know if I should laugh or feel stupid.
...is there anyone saying they did not hit geese or some form of animal capable of flight?! If not, then how in the world is this thread still alive?
...yet here I am posting! Now if it were pheasent or some other game bird that Cheney might have bought and brought to the airport, well then you might have something worthy of an ATS topic....but this isn't.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I, for one, am amazed at the skills necessary to make the cool headed maneuvers that the pilot executed once he realized what had happened.

I am however, curious at the idea that the pilot needed to be sequester, and it made me wonder why a pilot who had successfully landed a flying rock in a river, needed to be kept away from his family and the public.

And now for the absurd as web-bot calls it, “Terrorist Ninja pirate robot geese with methane gas from Mars have taken another plane”.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skittle
Why has everything to be a conspiracy?
I myself was on a plane that had lifted off and dropped height in a second, people screamed and we had to return to the ground. Accordingly to Ryanair (the airline), a bird had entered one of the engines.



Because almost everything is a conspiracy if you start to get behind the truth of all these events...

remember the San Diego wild Fires? We all knew it was arson... but why, and who? didn't we make a few arrests?

I'll tell you the why... The HR1955 bill got passed, but you never heard a word about it...

I suggest you look into the HR1955... and remember that it was passed durring the California Wild fire event.




www.youtube.com...






So while I have no proof or reason to suggest that this airplane that crashed in the Hudson was a hoax.... I wouldn't doubt that the possibility of there being a conspiracy here... the motive is to get the media attention off other serious news.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I love my conspiracies, but am unsure about this.

The engines at the bottom of the river is normal. I'll explain.

If birds got sucked into the engines, damage would occur to the compressor blades. As with any rotating device, this would cause vibration, weakening the mounts. Then the engines hit the water, being exposed to an enormous amount of resistance, while the enertia of the aircraft keeps pushing it forward. Snap!

Wouldn't suprise me in the slightest if this was a setup by the deceivers. But it is entirely possible the engines coming off was normal.


Originally posted by eaganthorn
I am however, curious at the idea that the pilot needed to be sequester, and it made me wonder why a pilot who had successfully landed a flying rock in a river, needed to be kept away from his family and the public.


Whoa! Didn't realize that!


Being "debriefed"?

[edit on 16/1/09 by NuclearPaul]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join