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.

 

Evidence Suggests US Airways Jet Hit a Soft Body

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Evidence Suggests US Airways Jet Hit a Soft Body


www.foxnews.com

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
This is kind of weird isn't it? What does that mean, a soft body? A whale? A bed of kelp? It kind of reminds me of the scifi movie where an event in history is manipulated because SOMEONE on that plane had to survive to help the future. But that's just Hollywood. Right?
I write a comment about the article and then I get an error message saying I didn't write enough? What are you doing, moderators, encouraging people to blather on and on when they've already said everything they want to say? That kind of seems counterproductive to establishing a meaningful discussion. I hope I hit the "required" amount of words, I'll try it again. I don't know why, but I expected better from ATS.

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



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Earlier this week, the safety board said the right engine also revealed evidence of "soft body damage" and that "organic material" was found in that engine and on the wings and fuselage. A single feather also was found.


The above is an excerpt from your source. Seems to me that the "soft body" is some sort of bird. As was the initial assumption.

Why not just say bird? Funny.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Yup, those danged evil Taliban Geese;


i278.photobucket.com...[/IMG]]


Zindo



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
maybe they know very well that it wasnt a bird and this is the only word play they can use in making everyone assume that a bird/s was/were hit without lying outrite about it!

Either that, or the one feather which survived the crash into the water against all odds, isnt conclusive enough evidence as yet!

We still have the problem of both engins failing, so shouldnt it be that 2 soft bodies were hit?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by corvin77
 


The article covers both engines, saying the right engine shows signs of "soft body damage" and the left shows traces of "organic matter" with a single feather found.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
What's the deal with Sully not being allowed to "comment on the incident"? It seems he has been isolated by investigators for a week and then requested not to talk. What are they afraid he might say? We think him a hero. He did an incredible job. People would love to hear his version of the story. You know, all the usual stuff like what was he thinking, feeling, did he know he could do it, did he immediately know it was birds and so on.

The "soft body" is a weird term. I'm sure they are trying to say bird without saying bird because the investigation isn't finished. I brought up on another thread the question of what else it could have been (that might amount to sabotage) and pilots on the thread explained convincingly that it was birds and nothing else. So why can't Sully talk freely and why can't they call a bird a bird?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by earlywatcher
 


probably for the same reason Police, lawyers or parties involved cannot discuss a court case or ongoing investigation. It might prejudice any outcome if people start mouthing off....



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Soft body doesn't just cover birds. It covers anything organic. If a mechanic goes through an engine that is considered a soft body impact. They prefer the words "soft body" to saying something like "the mechanic went into the engine and was torn to pieces." Soft body impact just means that a living thing went into the engine.

As for Sully not talking, that's because the NTSB hadn't completed interviews. The ALPA requested that the crew not talk to the media yet, until the NTSB cleared them after interviews. It's rare to have a crew survive, so they wanted to be sure that the NTSB was completely done with their questions before speaking.

He arrived home yesterday and gave a speach at his homecoming, and has interviews scheduled now.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I happened to hear Sully's speech. It was brief to say the least. He said it was chance that assembled that particular crew on that particular flight but that they all did the jobs they were trained to do. I'm paraphrasing of course. It was, as I would have expected, a very classy statement about the professionalism of commercial pilots.

Geraldo was supposed to have something more on his show last night about the airworthiness of that particular plane, given the compressor stall problem two days earlier. Did anybody see that show?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Tippys Dad
 

Bird strikes is a very likely scenario, usually they hit the cockpit window instead of the engines though. Do some research on the number of strikes and accidents involving birds and you'd be surprised. A takeoff was just scrubbed a few days ag in Orlando due to mirgrating birds, it is actually pretty common.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Soft body sounds like a legal neutral term. They said something but said nothing.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
There are AT LEAST 2,300 non-fatal bird strikes a year reported in the US alone. The FAA thinks that 80% of bird strikes are not reported. That means that there are probably over 5,000 non-fatal strikes every year in the US. Birds have caused the loss of everything from a DC-10, to a 707, to small aircraft.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
Yup, those danged evil Taliban Geese;


i278.photobucket.com...[/IMG]]


Zindo


I frown on one liner replies so I apologize in advance, but...

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Looking at some new pictures of the aircraft, it appears that a bird impacted the nose of the aircraft as well as the engines. There's damage to the nose just under the cockpit windows that doesn't appear to be consistent with impact. It's too high to be from hitting the river it looks like.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Maybe they hit an angel.

It would explain the non-committal identification of a soft body and would explain the feather.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
There are AT LEAST 2,300 non-fatal bird strikes a year reported in the US alone. The FAA thinks that 80% of bird strikes are not reported. That means that there are probably over 5,000 non-fatal strikes every year in the US.


Actually, that would mean there are over 10,000.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Has there been any information released as to the altitude that the airliner first experienced these soft bodies????



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Maybe they hit an alien skydiver



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Tippys Dad
 
Yes that was very interresting but what was it? Bah bah bah abh bah bah bah bah bah abh bah bah bha bla bah bah bah bah abha ba bla balh bah abh.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join