It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hudson River Plane Crash Suspicious

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:48 PM
The right engine was running at 15%, while the left stayed running at 35%. That was enough power to allow the hydraulic pumps and electrical systems to keep functioning.

The aircraft touched down on the water at 125-130 knots, and flaps deployed to the "2" position. Normally they land at 120-125 knots.

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:25 AM
The Hudson River Fiasco

First of all, I am truly glad and thankful that the plane and passengers landed safely.

But what a bloody cock up! What were the chances of a pilot being able to bring down a plane, in a crowded city, in daytime, with no warning, without a runway? And have ANY survivors.
But then planes don’t generally land on freezing water, they usually break up on impact. That’s if they don’t hit a building first?
Oh my my, planes crashing into buildings, in american citys, on eve of new president?
Sounds like a new 9/11.

“It is with great sadness that I take office and immediately declare war on some goat herders” said obama with smoke rising from the ashes behind him.

The captain and crew were whisked away for debriefing, I didn’t see them at the medal ceremony.
“for standing on riverside with mobile phone shouting “god that’s awesome” – one medal”
“for parking your ferry next to a plane instead of the dock you park at several times daily – one medal”
“for holding a ladder – which is your job – one medal”
“for wrapping a blanket around someone who was very slightly chilly – one medal”
“for landing the plane – incommunicado”
“for being a reliable witness – incommunicado”
“to give a reliable account of the birds – the long thin pointy ones with smoke coming out their arses - incommunicado"

I take it CIA agents, albeit blacked up carrying rucksacks at airports, are now designated as birds should they fail in their mission.

I can imagine the captains debriefing – how dare you land that f#ckin plane, that took months of planning, the invasion of Iran, the bombing of Syria, plus a 1meg nuke on old tallybanny was riding on you smashing spectacularly into a towerblock. Christ we even filled your tanks to the brim with extra hot burning fuel that WILL melt steel framed buildings – how dare you bloody land!!!!

Gee, that could have been the kick start out of the credit crunch – building another war machine.

I really do hope it was just a lucky accident, but if there are dark forces at work out there, take note, the universe is against you!

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:09 PM
I don't know about everyone else, but when was the last time you saw a flock of geese still hanging out in NY for the winter? It's been a very cold winter, all the geese fly south for the winter. There isn't a single bird around here.

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Sliick
Please take heed to what I am about to say OP...

Not everything is a conspiracy

Maybe not, but that's the way to bet.

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:38 PM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

When I drove a truck over the road, I saw geese in areas where there was almost a foot of snow on the ground. I saw a lot of birds I didn't expect to see standing around in the snow.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:23 AM
Well lo and behold everyone, guess what??? Upon inspection of the engine, there is NO EVIDENCE that has been found of any "organic" material inside.

WASHINGTON – A visual inspection of the battered, dented left engine of the US Airways jetliner that ditched in the Hudson River found no evidence of organic matter, but there are signs the plane hit a soft body, federal investigators say.

National Transportation Safety Board investigators said Saturday they visually examined the left engine after it was finally pulled 65 feet from the river bottom but saw no evidence of organic material.

What a big surprise. So where is the guy that was harping before about evidence of birds and feathers and such being found in the engine, he must feel pretty silly now eh? The plot thickens.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:33 AM
Considering that I used to work on engines and have seen ones that hit birds, no I don't in the least. A visual inspection means that they looked over the engine. They will have to tear it down and look inside. Especially considering other evidence of bird impact. I'm not going to jump on every single PRELIMINARY report as proof of conspiracy.

And what exactly do you think a "soft body" really is? It's a BIRD. Unless somehow a person got up there high enough to gp through the engine.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 12:46 PM

Originally posted by rufusdrak
What a big surprise. So where is the guy that was harping before about evidence of birds and feathers and such being found in the engine, he must feel pretty silly now eh? The plot thickens.

On Saturday, the NTSB said a preliminary examination of the left engine found evidence of "soft body impact damage," the same kind of damage reported on the right engine.

An NTSB spokesman said that there was no evidence of organic material such as a dead bird in the left engine but that was not surprising because the engine had been under water for a week.

The plot thins again.

[edit on 1/25/2009 by Zaphod58]

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 07:11 AM
Hey look, organic material was found in both engines, and a feather was found in the left engine.

As for the engine surge two days prior, it was caused by a faulty temperature sensor that was replaced.

So much for it being suspicious.

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 07:48 AM
As soon as I heard of it I thought it was suspicious just for the simple fact that there wasn't any amateur video released. All the videos released to the press were of poor quality bull# videos. The the fact that the plane stalled mid air 2 days prior? sounds pretty fishy but I just don't understand what anyone would gain besides the pilots recognition.

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 05:13 PM
Pictures of the plane in the water showed it to be very level. If one engine was still attached and the other was gone, shouldn't it have been leaning heavily to one side?

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:54 AM
For a short time the plane would have floated evenly. It eventually DID tip as seen in the later pics where the left wingtip is sticking up out of the water.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in