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.

 

Continental Crash 3407 - A Conspiracy? - 9/11 Widow - met w/ Obama Dead onboard

page: 11
38
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
This thread makes absolutely no sense !!

Where's your proof?

Do you always post dozens of times on threads that make no sense?

Sounds kinda obsessive/compulsive.

Here's a question that does make sense:


Originally posted by Shades1035
Just out of curiousity, why are there so many debunkers on ATS? A conspiracy board with so many people that just think that conspiracies do not exist. That makes no sense? It almost seems like a conspiracy!

My guess:


Big Increase in Pentagon Budget For Propaganda
Thursday, February 5 2009
By CHRIS TOMLINSON Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) --€” As it fights two wars, the Pentagon is steadily and dramatically increasing the money it spends to win what it calls "the human terrain" of world public opinion. In the process, it is raising concerns of spreading propaganda at home in violation of federal law.

An Associated Press investigation found that over the past five years, the money the military spends on winning hearts and minds at home and abroad has grown by 63 percent, to at least $4.7 billion this year, according to Department of Defense budgets and other documents. That's almost as much as it spent on body armor for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2004 and 2006.

Here's your chance to support the troops. Just quit posting so the Pentagon can buy more body armor.



[edit on 14-2-2009 by GoldenFleece]




posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
Thanks for doubling the air time of my post.
I don't think I explained my point properly.


Two members of jazz musician Chuck Mangione's band were among those killed on the plane that crashed into a house near Buffalo, N.Y.
www.allaboutjazz.com...


Is there another Bunch of Guys somewhere dreaming-up a conspiracy about the musicians?

It’s these eager beaver theory weavers that upset me. No one else. Where’s the good in inventing a theory and then trying to bend the data to fit it? Especially when, a few short hours after an event like this one, the data is so patchy. It’s not pretty and it’s not rational.

In The Meaning Of It All (1998) physicist Richard Feynman muses on this kind of stuff. In a chapter headed This Unscientific Age he writes: “I had the most remarkable experience this evening. While coming in here, I saw license plate ANZ 912. Calculate the odds that of all the license plates in the state of Washington I should happen to see ANZ 912.” A lot of junk theories start out that way.

The hypothesis is this: On religious forums there are some people that don’t accept science (mainly because of Darwin) and yet will still go to a scientifically-trained doctor when they are ill. Double-think. Some 9/11 theorists call themselves patriots and yet don’t believe one word that comes out of their own government or military. Double-think. When they find a Bunch of Guys they are amongst friends. They then run the danger of losing touch with reality by sharing more and more extreme ideas. The ideas only make sense to the Bunch of Guys, which re-enforces their separation from the outside world, which confirms (to them) that they are on to Something Big, and so on.

I’m asking them for a little introspection to break the cycle.

Richard Fenyman again: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by questioningall
 


It can be above freezing on the ground, but that doesn't mean its the same a few hundred feet to a few thousand feet above. Plus, water will freeze on a cold surface, so even if it is around freezing, there can be ice build up on the wings. It was said today there were problems after deploying flaps.

Also on the one woman who lost her husband on 9/11, I doubt its a conspiracy to kill her. Coincidence? Probably. But this does not sound like the 9/11 Truther who believes bombs/thermite/holograms/inside job/decoys/etc were responsible, since the only thing she was trying to get an investigation of the intelligence failures up to 9/11, of which there were PLENTY of screw ups and red tape. I do admit the intel agencies dropped the ball with failures of communication between the CIA, NSA, and FBI. This is not suspect though, or conspiracy. Just bureaucratic red-tape contributing to a catastrophe. I'd be pissed too if I found out they were monitoring these terrorists but no one got the message thanks to red-tape.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuppence2
Some 9/11 theorists call themselves patriots and yet don’t believe one word that comes out of their own government or military.

Don't confuse patriotism towards a country or it's founding principles with blind loyalty towards any government. Especially a blatantly criminal and out-of-control government where the president thinks the Constitution is a "goddam piece of paper."

When the government starts telling the truth, I'll start believing them.

Until then, "dissent is the highest form of patriotism."



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
This thread makes absolutely no sense !!

Where's your proof?
Read my post. There's your proof.


Do you always post dozens of times on threads that make no sense?

Deny ignorance



Originally posted by Shades1035
Just out of curiousity, why are there so many debunkers on ATS? A conspiracy board with so many people that just think that conspiracies do not exist. That makes no sense? It almost seems like a conspiracy!

The word debunker is used by skeptic is probably more appropriate. Skeptics are willing to believe when evidence is available that the statement is true. What's wrong with that?


My guess:


Big Increase in Pentagon Budget For Propaganda
Thursday, February 5 2009
By CHRIS TOMLINSON Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) --€” As it fights two wars, the Pentagon is steadily and dramatically increasing the money it spends to win what it calls "the human terrain" of world public opinion. In the process, it is raising concerns of spreading propaganda at home in violation of federal law.

An Associated Press investigation found that over the past five years, the money the military spends on winning hearts and minds at home and abroad has grown by 63 percent, to at least $4.7 billion this year, according to Department of Defense budgets and other documents. That's almost as much as it spent on body armor for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2004 and 2006.

Here's your chance to support the troops. Just quit posting so the Pentagon can buy more body armor.



[edit on 14-2-2009 by GoldenFleece]

But because of your enhanced jedi mind powers, you're immune this? You're one of the few "special ones" who can see through the veil to the real truth



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by j2000
 


Hi, since your a aerospace engineer. I want to ask you... don't the planes have pilot heat.

Don't they have a heating system on the wings? Something with the electronics circuitry that would heat up the wings.

I ask this cause I been interested in being a pilot since I was little. I used to play with those microsoft flight simulators and I was explained that each plan has a pilot heat system that heats the wings when your in a situation wear ice forums on the wings.

I don't know how to it is cause this was the 98 edition which was pretty crappy. The newer editions are better.

I just want to know if you heard anything about that??

I understood the problem when ice forums on the wings. The ice will not let a steady flow of air go on top of the wing causing life instead it will not cause lift causing a crash.

I don't see how it can be a nose dive. I guess it depends on how the play is positioned meaning if it was on a turn or anything.

otherwise the plane should of glided downwards. It can't be a nose dive unless they had the nose too low or they were doing a turn of some sort that can get them into a nose dive position.

otherwise I would think that the aircraft would glide downwards even if their is no lift the plane wouldn't just done a nose dive. It would of glided downwards.

Just saying that it was a weird crash. I also thought they de-ice the planes before take off?

isn't that what the guys with that large hose.


well the crash was kinda fishy. It may be a accident but still I have many questions about the ice theory.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Government was created for the people. So many people nowadays have truly forgotten that. There needs to be constant checks and balances.

Unfortunately the masses overall shouldnt even be allowed to vote. George Washington called Democracy 'Mobocracy' ....and I always enjoyed the old metaphor that democracy is like 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

So now the wolves have teamed up and bought their way into the government. Numbers + cash = ftw in democracy, who didnt see that coming?


so dont you dare sit there and tell us to believe everything we hear and to stop being so 'crazy' in our Conspiracies. I think it would scare you to read Kissinger and how their thoughts view US...

The Government, or those behind it, are on a takeover mission. They are Predators. Question everything and if nothing else, ask yourself,


What are the chances that a Family member goes down in an Airplane and in under 10 years, another family member follows suit....
and..

Would *you* like people to look into it? Or would you want people to accept your death at face value?


One word - Kennedy's






[edit on 14-2-2009 by itsblownbackbaby]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by itsblownbackbaby
 


What everyone keeps ignoring here is that if the government wanted this woman dead, why take an entire plane down? There are so many things that could go wrong with this.

Why not just make sure she has a single person "accident" ?
What's easier?
Setting up an entire plane to crash which will get media attention FOR SURE!
or
someone who gets mugged and shot which probably will not get any media attention.

People need to stop being so paranoid.
There are enough real things going on around us so there is no need to make up conspiracies like this one.

Come on. Actually think this through people !!!



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Let me get this straight.....the NWO took out a 9/11 widow and the only they could possibly do it is by taking down a plane and killing other people. These are the people that are supposed to be in control of the world? I would think they would have had a better plan...
. Oh well....I'm not kooky like most of you
. Hey maybe......she wasn't real...what if she was a hologram working for the 9/11 conspiracy guys and the plane was all a figment of our imagination...hmmm. Hey this is fun making up baseless accusations.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by riggs2099]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by computerwiz32
 


They have Pitot heat (not pilot), which essentially heats up the pitot probe, pronounced pee-toe. It's always ON, but unrelated to wing de-ice or anti-ice. Aircraft are not certified for SEVERE icing.

For information on anti-ice, or really, de-ice, go here, read the posts by Weedwhacker in that thread, too.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Remember that these guys have to fly planes in conditions people usually wouldn't feel safe driving cars.


[edit on 14/2/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I just posted one of the comments made by the NTSB mouthpiece in the other thread on this. Some of you may be interested.

TheWelder

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


The bigger the lie the more convincing it is...many 9/11 witnesses have died in supicious circumstances and her being so high profile would only raise too many questions if she was to "die" singly. She was a young, healthy, fit woman. A heart condition or the like wouldnt wear. She was not the sort of person to commit "suicide" ..many questions would be asked there too.
She was pressing hard on Obama for another investigation. It will be interesting to see if any of her fellow "truthers" get anywhere with that.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I suppose since this is a conspiracy site, we can expect the #'s of folks who instantly call out a planned murder based on minimal facts and data, inventing the plot as they go along. It just saddens me a little. And no, I don't believe for a moment that most of you who throw in the line "Oh.. well, yea, of course I'm grieving, but!.." You didn't shed a tear, and you don't honestly care. In fact, you are thrilled when something like this happens. Something to sink your teeth into and give you another few weeks of happy posting on sites like this, to try and push your sloppy, ill-formed ideas about how wicked and evil our government is.

Am I grieving? No, I did not know these people, not a one. I feel saddened by the crash, and I feel for those who lost loved ones.

Do I feel their COULD be a conspiracy? Absolutely. I'm quite willing to have a very open mind and deduce my thoughts as the actual facts are presented. Not before. More should try that. Logically, I can't think of a good reason to take this plane down because of the woman in question. But maybe something more will come to light in the coming weeks.

GoldenFleece: If you will never believe the government until "they stop lying" to you, you've just created your own happy environment to blame them for anything that happens... because it's pretty obvious, you NEVER believe anything they say. Truth or not. You've got your own preconceived notions about some NWO and our government, so you always have a biased take on anything that comes up. That makes for poor, ill thought out research, I'm sorry to say. When someone is guilty before the facts are even known, I honestly don't know how you can think that your research and logic are well-formed.

How you manage to dance around this sites policies on courtesy and decorum baffles my mind though. You are borderline insulting and rude to everyone who opposes your ideas. Have you yet considered attacking the ideas, NOT the people presenting them? Any disrespect I have for you stems solely how you treat others, NOT from your ideas.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by sueloujo
reply to post by jfj123
 


The bigger the lie the more convincing it is...many 9/11 witnesses have died in supicious circumstances and her being so high profile would only raise too many questions if she was to "die" singly. She was a young, healthy, fit woman. A heart condition or the like wouldnt wear. She was not the sort of person to commit "suicide" ..many questions would be asked there too.
She was pressing hard on Obama for another investigation. It will be interesting to see if any of her fellow "truthers" get anywhere with that.


But she's been all over the news because she died in a plane wreck like I said. There is more of a microscope on her now because plane crashes make the news whereas individual deaths typically do not.

Again, this makes no sense.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
So what exactly was so important about Beverly Eckert?

Why target just her?
Why not the rest of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee?
Why not the Jersey Girls?

Here's a couple of articles I've found about her. The first is from 2004:

www.usnews.com...


The wish of a 9/11 widow Posted 12/5/04

A member of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 commission, Beverly Eckert, 53, wants "something constructive" to come from the death of her husband, Sean Rooney, in the World Trade Center. After urging Congress to form an investigative commission, Eckert (pictured at a ground zero vigil last week) is now championing intelligence reform legislation that stalled in the House after key Republicans wanted more provisions: no driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, to name one.

Why is there an impasse?

People forget this is a bill about terrorism. You could put countless things in this bill and make a connection to our safety. We need to go one step at a time--and start by reforming the intelligence community. I want to deny terrorists driver's licenses, too, but I want to do that later.

How are you holding up?

If I knew that [after] three years we would still be waiting for intelligence reform, I don't know if I would have signed up. My life feels like that movie Groundhog Day; I'm constantly getting out of a cab in front of the Rayburn House Office Building, trying to get something done.



Second article was published today:

www.stamfordadvocate.com...



This photo provided by the White House, taken Friday, Feb. 6, 2009, shows President Barack Obama shaking hands with Beverly Eckert in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus in Washington during a meeting with a group who lost family members in the 9/11 and the USS Cole tragedies. Eckert, a Sept. 11 widow, was on a commuter plane approaching the Buffalo airport Thursday night when it nose-dived into the ground, killing all aboard and one person on the ground. ((AP Photo/White House, Pete Souza))

Afterward, Eckert joined other families in lobbying for creation of the 9/11 Commission. She advocated for improvements to national security. She was a vocal proponent of building a memorial at the World Trade Center site, and spoke out against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I'm trying to find a new path for myself," Eckert told The Advocate on the first anniversary of the attacks. "The life I led a year ago doesn't exist." Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy said Eckert worked with the city on various memorial projects. "Beverly was a strong and compassionate voice on behalf of the victims of September 11, and she will be missed in our community," he said.



After reading this, do people still believe she was targeted?

I really hope not.





Edit to add sources.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Chadwickus]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by lynn112
 
It's not only ice on the wings, but that is significant. The q400 has a wing area of 63.1 square meters. If ice covered both top and bottom at a 1/2 inch thickness, that would add 1.6 metric tons (about 3500 pounds) of weight.That's compounded by the degradation of the airfoil shape, the loss of thrust from the propeller blades by ice on them and the asymmetric ice formation caused by the fact that both engines rotate the same direction.
The fact that it might have been over 32 deg. F on the ground isn't relevant since the standard lapse (cooling) rate is roughly 3 and one-half degrees F per 1000 feet of altitude, so at 16,000 feet it's more than 50 degrees colder.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Just curious, what are your thoughts about 9/11?

If in fact rogue elements of the U.S. government were involved (which a preponderance of evidence strongly suggests), does it dishonor the victims to speak the truth?

If it's even remotely possible that our own government could do something that evil (Operation Northwoods proves they've planned these types of operations since the 1960s), not to mention the entire MSM refusing to question the many 9/11 anomalies, can you really blame anyone for being initially skeptical about every disaster?

Is directing anger and disgust towards what you call the "knee-jerk conspiracists" really a case of shooting the messenger?

Would it perhaps be more appropriate to blame a government whose actions have repeatedly demonstrated that they're incapable of accepting responsibility and telling the truth, even after accidentally shooting down a jetliner like TWA 800? Trust is earned, and based on the last 50 years, there's very little reason to trust anything the government says or does. Same goes for the traitorous corporate media.

Whether Continental 3407 ends up being a conspiracy or not, I think your condemnation is misplaced. Some people seem more focused on condemning those who tell the truth and point out evil rather than the evil itself.




As this is not a debate of the 9/11 arguments, I'll keep my comments brief. Seeking the Truth is the noblest endeavour. But unfounded speculations can be grafted on to information to and synthesize to outright disinformation ultimatley present a scenario that is untrue.

Based on 7 years of intense research by people all over the world, most of whom have no agenda either way in trying to get to the bottom of things,and weighing it all, I’d say we know, not just think, that 9/11 was planned and executed by the hostile Middle Eastern interests with a history of attacking the US and other Western powers.

There are many questions about how much knowledge some members and agencies in the US government had in advance. This needs to be determined.

Unfortunately views on 9/11 have polarized into two camps, those who believe this was a complete surprise attack, and those who say the US government was involved in it.

We risk obscuring the truth when we blame and demonize any group, be it Muslims or the US government. The US has done awful things politically, but there have also been many well intentioned, even if sometimes misguided interventions in world affairs. Most of the government key players are elected officials, and over the years policies and circumstances are constantly shifting. What any administration did in the past doesn't necessarily reflect on all policies and procedures for eternity.

Reasonable people try to assess available information and theories regarding important events, not what is isolated and presented to them by those pushing a single viewpoint. We have an overwhelming mass of data, confessions, documents, witnesses, that tell us foreign elements attacked the US September 11, 2001. To deny it gives them implicit support and encouragement. This is wrong.


Mike F





[edit on 14-2-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
The word debunker is used by skeptic is probably more appropriate. Skeptics are willing to believe when evidence is available that the statement is true. What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with that as long as you can properly evaluate evidence and are truly objective.

For example, there's little or no hard evidence that would make me think this crash is anything more than a weather related accident. There's a few oddities, but nothing that couldn't be partially justified or explained.

But 9/11 is a whole different story. Anyone who seriously investigates the hundreds of crazy anomalies and lack of government transparency (such as a photo of whatever hit the Pentagon) can only come to one conclusion. I doubt you've done much independent research because the entire notion seems highly implausible, even offensive to you. Anyone who openly advocates "support the troops" is probably more of a top-down, hierarchal thinker who doesn't question authority and lacks the capacity for independent analysis.

The ultimate irony is someone who's sigs are "convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies" and "those who would relinquish liberty to gain security, deserve neither and will soon lose both", but doesn't even realize his beliefs directly contradict the spirit of those quotes.

Has it ever occurred to you that the Patriot Act -- which Ron Paul believes was written before 9/11 -- relinquishes far more liberty for "security" than any other legislation in history? Do you really think this was rammed through to protect us against the global bogeyman Osama bin Laden and al-CIAduh? Have you read 1984?

Seriously dewd, wake up to what's happening in America, which is headed perilously close to a bankrupt plutocracy and fascist police state. All because of our 9/11 Reichstag Fire and pseudo-patriots who care more about supporting the troops than supporting the Constitution.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
She knew too much, they got to get rid of her. RIP



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

The word debunker is used by skeptic is probably more appropriate. Skeptics are willing to believe when evidence is available that the statement is true. What's wrong with that?


Nothing wrong with that as long as you can properly evaluate evidence and are truly objective.

Yes.


For example, there's little or no hard evidence that would make me think this crash is anything more than a weather related accident. There's a few oddities, but nothing that couldn't be partially justified or explained.

Makes sense.


But 9/11 is a whole different story. Anyone who seriously investigates the hundreds of crazy anomalies and lack of government transparency (such as a photo of whatever hit the Pentagon) can only come to one conclusion. I doubt you've done much independent research because the entire notion seems highly implausible, even offensive to you. Anyone who openly advocates "support the troops" is probably more of a top-down, hierarchal thinker who doesn't question authority and lacks the capacity for independent analysis.

That's your uneducated opinion.
Let me explain your problem. It doesn't seem like you have the technical skills to properly investigate 9/11 anomolies. No offense but entire teams of engineers, analysts, etc... with years of experience have investigated 9/11 and I highly doubt you alone have the skills of all those people. So before you put yourself up on too high a pedestal, above the rest of us non-independent thinkers, you might want to take that into consideration.

Regarding the fact that I support our troops. I put that statement up during the bush administration and regardless of whether I believed in the bush administration or not, those troops were and are willing to put their lives on the line to protect their country and it's people. That type of sacrifice alone is worth our respect and support. If you can't see that, I pity you.


The ultimate irony is someone who's sigs are "convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies" and "those who would relinquish liberty to gain security, deserve neither and will soon lose both", but doesn't even realize his beliefs directly contradict the spirit of those quotes.

They in no way contradict my beliefs. Let me explain:
1. "convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies"
This quote is for people like you who must adhere to their convictions even in the light of their own falsehoods.
2. those who would relinquish liberty to gain security, deserve neither and will soon lose both"
This quote, I specifically added because I didn't like the fact that the bush administration had violated The United States Constitution on more then one occassion.


Has it ever occurred to you that the Patriot Act -- which Ron Paul believes was written before 9/11 -- relinquishes far more liberty for "security" than any other legislation in history? Do you really think this was rammed through to protect us against the global bogeyman Osama bin Laden and al-CIAduh? Have you read 1984?

Please show me any quote I've ever made in any thread on ATS since I signed up that said I supported the Patriot Act. In fact, if you care to look, I've always posted comments against the patriot act and the bush administrations illegal wire tap program not to mention their illegal use of torture, extraordinary rendition, and illegal imprisonments of foreign nationals. I could go on and on regarding all the abuses of the Constitution the bush administration was involved in such as suppressing intelligence information to get us into the Iraq war or an attempt to suppress intelligence information regarding Irans nuclear program.

Do you honestly believe that the US government uses 1984 as a guidebook? COME ON.

since you're a fan of fiction leading reality, maybe you'll get something out of this quote

Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
-A Few Good Men- Col. Jessup


Seriously dewd, wake up to what's happening in America, which is headed perilously close to a bankrupt plutocracy and fascist police state. All because of our 9/11 Reichstag Fire and pseudo-patriots who care more about supporting the troops than supporting the Constitution.

Read above before shooting your mouth off again. Deny IGNORANCE on your part.



[edit on 14-2-2009 by jfj123]



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join