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.

 

Passengers report scare on earlier US Airways Flight 1549

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Passengers report scare on earlier US Airways Flight 1549


www.cnn.com

Two days before US Airways Flight 1549 crashed into the Hudson River, passengers on the same route and same aircraft say they heard a series of loud bangs and the flight crew told them they could have to make an emergency landing, CNN has learned.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Apparently the same jet that crashed in the Hudson experienced compressor stalls on a previous flight.

I thought the crash was a bit strange, considering how "perfect" the pilot was for the job of landing this craft. Look at his resume. And now this. There were a few rumblings about this being staged, which I still don't believe, but this is interesting indeed. Hey, this is a conspiracy site


www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 20-1-2009 by ACEMANN]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Wow. I never would have thought. This is interesting. Conspiracy?



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ACEMANN
 

Bush starts his regime with a downer event....... 911 death and destruction in NY.

Barrack begins his reign with an upbeat event........ hero's and survivors in NY.

The crash is a real anomaly. Everything so perfect. Supposedly you don't survive these plane crashes.

Supposedly the Trade Towers were designed to survive a plane crash and did not.

Two plane events...... 911 and now Flight 1549. One a disaster the other a miracle. Curses and blessings... Sounds just like an Old Testament message from "God".



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Remember back in 2007 when NASA did a study on airline safety and then refused to publish their findings?




Members of Congress and aviation safety experts yesterday criticized NASA's refusal to release the results from an extensive survey of pilots that may help pinpoint potential safety lapses in the country's aviation network.

The reaction came in response to attempts by the Associated Press to obtain a copy of the database, which contains the results of more than 20,000 telephone interviews with airline and general aviation pilots. It is not known what the surveys uncovered.

NASA officials told the AP, which reported that it requested the database more than 14 months ago, that they would not release the information because it might shake the public's confidence in the airlines.


source



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by dreb13
 


No, I do not remember when they failed to release the report.

www.npr.org...

www.nasa.gov...



[edit on 20/1/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Oops, my bad
NASA did release their findings but nobody could interpret what the report said.

Using the link you provided to the NPR source:




NASA Releases Cryptic Airline Safety Study

NASA on Monday dumped 29,000 lines of raw data onto the Internet to fulfill a promise to release information about the safety of air travel. NASA declined to say what the data meant/, but previously, the space agency had refused to release the information at all because it feared scaring the public and hurting the aviation industry.

...

On Monday, he complied — with a data set that has been broken down into long columns, mostly zeroes, stripped of information that could put it into a real context.






posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by dreb13
 




www.nasa.gov...

All the data is there; it's hard to interpret but doesn't really show anything significant, in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
The strange part of this to me is how there was 3 fairy boats that had no passengers on them within minutes of the crash at the plane. You combine that with the reported data in this thread and it starts to make you go whaaaat ?

Its probably all just a very lucky circumstance.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by KOGDOG
reply to post by ACEMANN
 

Bush starts his regime with a downer event....... 911 death and destruction in NY.

Barrack begins his reign with an upbeat event........ hero's and survivors in NY.

The crash is a real anomaly. Everything so perfect. Supposedly you don't survive these plane crashes.

Supposedly the Trade Towers were designed to survive a plane crash and did not.

Two plane events...... 911 and now Flight 1549. One a disaster the other a miracle. Curses and blessings... Sounds just like an Old Testament message from "God".


That's not at all true, Myth Busters has proven that most people survive on impact, it's the smoke and flames that suffocate and incapacitate that kill people in a plane crash. In this crash there were no flames, and the landing was solid. This is hardly a conspiracy, just an unfortunate event that turned out with a happy ending. This could show though that one of the engines was indeed already soon to die and the bird being injected into the other put stress on the other engine causing them both to fail in short order...I really don't see how anyone could call this a conspiracy....not everything is staged you know...hardly anything is staged.

[edit on 20-1-2009 by yellowcard]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
All the early accounts referred to the bird strike as the assumed cause of the loss of power. This earlier incident raises the question of what was going on with this plane.

I am not suggesting that this was anything less than brilliant flying on the part of the captain, nor am I suggesting that birds were trained to fly into the engine. I'm just not entirely convinced it was birds.

If someone wanted to create terror in a country during the transition of power, the crash of a plane in the middle of New York city would do the trick. Would it be difficult to plant something inside the engines that would shut them down by remote control? I'm not a techie but that doesn't sound too difficult and it's not the kind of thing the whole security force is looking for. This early incident could have been a small practice run. When it worked the single stalleld engine was allowed to restart and the flight continue on its way.

The fact that the plane did not break up on impact with the river or crash into the bridge or building and explode could not have been anticipated. It ruined the terror.

After several days of debriefing I don't particularly believe any account coming from the cockpit or "officials". No one wants to let people know there was an attempted terror attack that got through the precautions, and bird strikes are known to be a serious threat so it's entirely plausible, especially in light of the happy ending.

If that flock of birds was big enough to take out two engines, some must have survived and someone or two of the passengers must have seen birds outside the plane. Has anybody heard of passengers who saw birds?



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by yellowcard
 


To quote Shakespeare, "The world is a stage"...and I think I read somewhere that the engines failed simultaneously. I'm just stirring the pot
I don't really think there is any conspiracy here.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join