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: 14
38
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beefcake

I'll tell you why this is a conspiracy.

1. It is a conspiracy because according to this article by the telegraph in the U.K. there have just been 10 fatal plane crashes in the U.S. in the last 13 years and only 4 inc this one since 9/11. So out of Hundreds of thousand planes that fly in all sorts of weather in all sorts of situations in the last 13 years only 10 have had fatalities.
10 Fatal crashes in 13 years

So what? You're saying that because only a few planes crash, that automatically this is a conspiracy? Makes no sense.

Here are some interesting aviation facts

Approximately 80 percent of all aviation accidents occur shortly before, after, or during takeoff or landing, and are often described as resulting from 'human error'


According to the NTSB:

there were 167 "taxi/commuter plane" accidents with fatalities from 1996-present.
Continental flight 3407 was a commuter plane.

there were 27 "air carrier" plane accidents with fatalities from 1996-present. Examples of "air carriers" are 737, 757, airbus, etc..




posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
does ice stop an object losing it's forward momentum?
have any of you ever heard or seen a crash recreation that showed a civilian plane that went into a flat spin? it's unheard of, it's what you hear from military people speaking about how an f-14 crashed, civilian jets don't go into flat spins.
the reports right now are the plane crashed belly first with wings, cockpit,tail, fuselage all in 1 area. impossible! passenger jets don't go into flat spins. this stinks



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

So blaming on ice, yet saying it was ALL WORKING NORMALLY??!!!

Oh boy.

No aircraft is designed to fly in severe icing; it's relatively rare, and the times where it is encountered it is usually passed through rather quickly. Furthermore, The Q400, ATR and B737 etc are certified to fly in icing condition, with droplet size (freezing rain) up to 50 microns. After the Roselawn (discussed bellow) accident NTSB reported that day and place a size of 200 microns!

The Q400 has leading edge boots, which are inflatable rubber pockets designed to break ice up, off the leading edge. Problem is, they ONLY cover the leading edge, ice can still accumulate in other areas, such as behind the leading edge, called, runback ice, and this can be exacerbated by prop wash leading to un-even distribution. There seems to be some perception here and there that regardless of icing severity, you can just fly through it with the boots working, and all will be well... ? Well, it's not true; the crew reported significant ice buildup.

According to the NTSB, there were pitch and roll excursions at about the time flaps 15 were selected, whereupon the crew selected flaps and gear up. Icing. Just remember, when flying in severe icing, you're not a pilot, you're more or less a test pilot; aircraft are not certified, or tested to rare conditions that are possible in the sky.

As for, "very sophisticated" de-ice equipment. To the contrary, the anti-ice on the Q400 is relatively basic, using only boots instead of electrical systems. Anti-ice is usually designed for cruise flight, not low speed configurations. This type of crash has happenened before, with a very similar kind of aircraft, with similar de-icing protection, with similar loss of control. Also there was, Linjeflyg Flight 618, although the anti-ice was not operating properly, the aircraft lost control when full flaps were appliest, just like this accident.

Some random links (mostly for myself when I visit ATS tomorow).

video.google.com...

www.aopa.org...

[edit on 15/2/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 

Beverley Eckert was co chairwoman of voices for sept 11

Beverley Eckert was also a member of :-

Skyscraper Safety Campaign, Coalition of 9/11 Families,
Families of September 11th, Fix the Fund, 9/11 Families for a Secure America,
9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, 9/11 Families to Bankrupt Terrorism
She worked tirelessly in the effort.
After the death of her husband Sean Rooney on 9/11, Beverly joined me in co-founding Voices of September 11th to provide the 9/11 families a voice and advocate on their behalf. Beverly was passionate and deeply committed to improving the safety and security of Americans. She worked tirelessly to advocate for the creation of the 9/11 Commission and legislation based on its recommendations and more recently supported the implementation of the WMD Commission recommendations. Beverly was among the 9/11 family members who met with President Obama last Friday to discuss the closing of Guantanamo

Of course she was a thorn in their side. You dont give up $1.8 for nothing. Remember "hell hath no fury....."



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by questioningall
 


yea, something is a miss. Here's why, and someone that is a pilot can correct me to the 'T" if they'd like. So, don't flame, just the details.

FIRST off, the pilot will be in contract with the tower. IF he/she(they), might see an issue, they can 'usually' radio the tower on conditions outside and the reactions of the plane IF they can NOT stay on the vector they are given BY the tower. Being that it's a turbo, it will probably mean it's instrumented, meaning, they don't have to 'litterly' see outside to fly; because they have instruments to nav by.

SECOND. If they were at 16,000ft, yes, it will be cold, but, as stated above, they should have been in contact with the tower because of the vector they had. They could have dropped 5k and gotten out of it IMO.

THIRD. Prop's don't just 'nose dive' when they are out of power, they will still have some lift to them and continue to glide a ways, I think a stnd prop can glide for couple miles before it will no long be able to gain lift, in which the pilot should be in contact with the tower for a place to land; just because the engine quits doesn't mean no contact with tower. There's still a radio.

FOURTH. Maintance records and a must to fly. PM's must be recorded and logged per FAA rules.


so yea, something doesn't add up .. does it. That's a starting point and you can go from there.

Liscensed Pilot's, feel free to correct me


I am a licensed Airline Transport Pilot with over 8,000 hours flight experience and 40 years of accident investigation experience. I think the most likely explanation is "tailplane icing, or accretion on the horizontal stabilizer. In a controlled NASA test several years ago, tailplane icing caused what is called elevator snatch where a stab stall snatched the wheel out of the pilot's hands with a force of 800 pounds. The push to talk switch is on the wheel so if it's out of your hands, no transmission. The snatch occurred in 2 tenths of a second and happened at the time of flap extension. There is a great video you can find by googling "tailplane icing" and nasa. When the stab stalls, the aircraft violently pitches down to vertical if not stopped by raising flaps and gear. That is because the center of lift is behind the center of gravity and the tailplane provides the balancing negative lift or downforce. The q400 has pneumatic deicing boots which IMO are much less reliable and effective than engine bleed air anti-icing systems. The video is at video.google.com...

[edit on 15-2-2009 by 4nsicdoc]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by sueloujo
reply to post by Chadwickus
 

Beverley Eckert was co chairwoman of voices for sept 11

Beverley Eckert was also a member of :-

Skyscraper Safety Campaign, Coalition of 9/11 Families,
Families of September 11th, Fix the Fund, 9/11 Families for a Secure America,
9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, 9/11 Families to Bankrupt Terrorism
She worked tirelessly in the effort.
After the death of her husband Sean Rooney on 9/11, Beverly joined me in co-founding Voices of September 11th to provide the 9/11 families a voice and advocate on their behalf. Beverly was passionate and deeply committed to improving the safety and security of Americans. She worked tirelessly to advocate for the creation of the 9/11 Commission and legislation based on its recommendations and more recently supported the implementation of the WMD Commission recommendations. Beverly was among the 9/11 family members who met with President Obama last Friday to discuss the closing of Guantanamo

Of course she was a thorn in their side. You dont give up $1.8 for nothing. Remember "hell hath no fury....."


She sounds like a hero to me.

Yet no giant news tributes. Go figure.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicdoc
 


video.google.com...

www.aopa.org...

Top link is the video you're refering to. The plane apparently hit the ground with level attitude, which apparently is unlike a tailplane stall.


FIRST off, the pilot will be in contract with the tower. IF he/she(they), might see an issue, they can 'usually' radio the tower on conditions outside and the reactions of the plane IF they can NOT stay on the vector they are given BY the tower. Being that it's a turbo, it will probably mean it's instrumented, meaning, they don't have to 'litterly' see outside to fly; because they have instruments to nav by.

SECOND. If they were at 16,000ft, yes, it will be cold, but, as stated above, they should have been in contact with the tower because of the vector they had. They could have dropped 5k and gotten out of it IMO.

THIRD. Prop's don't just 'nose dive' when they are out of power, they will still have some lift to them and continue to glide a ways, I think a stnd prop can glide for couple miles before it will no long be able to gain lift, in which the pilot should be in contact with the tower for a place to land; just because the engine quits doesn't mean no contact with tower. There's still a radio.

FOURTH. Maintance records and a must to fly. PM's must be recorded and logged per FAA rules.

The only thing I can say is this.

Planes can crash in more ways other than engine failure.

EDIT: ALL evidence points to a loss of control incident due to wing icing.

I'm going to bed.

[edit on 15/2/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicdoc
 


Now they are reporting the plane did not nose dive, but landed flat. De-icing was working, stall protector was initiated.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by sueloujo
 


No more a thorn than the other members of the commission or the Jersey Girls.

Let's agree to disagree shall we.

And as much as it pains me, I have to agree with doctordoom.

She was a hero.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
why in the world would "they", whomever "they" are, take down an ENTIRE plane when they could knock off a single person at any time over a period of years?

This thread makes absolutely no sense !!



Of course it is a speculation, there is no evidence one way or the other save the
coincidence of the story about what Obama is going to do about prosecuting the Bush criminals being somewhat prominent in the news, as well as having a meeting with the woman very recently.

You see these people do overkill to make a point; they would easily murder 48 people just to get at one to make their point, as in 911 the murder of three thousand people just to make a statement.

There are black ops that are certain: 911, Kennedy murder, Oklahoma, etc... And there are always those with little evidence we can only speculate on.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Only 44 passengers (plus crew) on a plane that held a bunch more, and one of the passengers was a real thorn in the side of the establishment. Get rid of that thorn along with the reduced collateral damage, could be something to the conspiracy. It could have been a message to truth seekers in general, but 'they' should know by now that it only galvanizes truth efforts, especially when citizens are becoming more pissed off regarding the country's downward spiral with each passing day. It would have been more obvious to suicide her or car wreck her by having her accidentally drive off a bridge. No mayday from the cockpit is kind of strange.

All that being said, I'm still not sold on a conspiracy yet.

Peace




[edit on 13-2-2009 by Dr Love]


The Comair regional jet that went down in Kentucky two years ago or so, also took the lives of 49 people. Freaky.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I caught this comment on another forum:

www.freerepublic.com...
"MSNBC talking to a witness who said he got to within 10 feet of the fuselage. He is also saying that 9 other witnesses reported seeing the plane on fire before hitting the ground or house."



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
NTSB spokesman Steve Chealander says the plane landed on its belly. All the plane sections found suggests flight 3407 did not land on its nose. Flight 3407 did not disintegrate.

mefeedia.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal

why in the world would "they", whomever "they" are, take down an ENTIRE plane when they could knock off a single person at any time over a period of years?

This thread makes absolutely no sense !!





You see these people do overkill to make a point; they would easily murder 48 people just to get at one to make their point,

Do you have any evidence of this?
Also, what is the "point" they're trying to make?



[edit on 15-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz

So blaming on ice, yet saying it was ALL WORKING NORMALLY??!!!

Oh boy.

No aircraft is designed to fly in severe icing; it's relatively rare, and the times where it is encountered it is usually passed through rather quickly. Furthermore, The Q400, ATR and B737 etc are certified to fly in icing condition, with droplet size (freezing rain) up to 50 microns. After the Roselawn (discussed bellow) accident NTSB reported that day and place a size of 200 microns!

The Q400 has leading edge boots, which are inflatable rubber pockets designed to break ice up, off the leading edge. Problem is, they ONLY cover the leading edge, ice can still accumulate in other areas, such as behind the leading edge, called, runback ice, and this can be exacerbated by prop wash leading to un-even distribution. There seems to be some perception here and there that regardless of icing severity, you can just fly through it with the boots working, and all will be well... ? Well, it's not true; the crew reported significant ice buildup.

According to the NTSB, there were pitch and roll excursions at about the time flaps 15 were selected, whereupon the crew selected flaps and gear up. Icing. Just remember, when flying in severe icing, you're not a pilot, you're more or less a test pilot; aircraft are not certified, or tested to rare conditions that are possible in the sky.

As for, "very sophisticated" de-ice equipment. To the contrary, the anti-ice on the Q400 is relatively basic, using only boots instead of electrical systems. Anti-ice is usually designed for cruise flight, not low speed configurations. This type of crash has happenened before, with a very similar kind of aircraft, with similar de-icing protection, with similar loss of control. Also there was, Linjeflyg Flight 618, although the anti-ice was not operating properly, the aircraft lost control when full flaps were appliest, just like this accident.

Some random links (mostly for myself when I visit ATS tomorow).

video.google.com...

www.aopa.org...

[edit on 15/2/2009 by C0bzz]


Yep - that is the previous icing incident I was talking about in my earlier post. It rolled violently and went straight down. I believe this was an icing incident as well. The posts about the tailplane icing jogged my memory - "if you have ice on the wings you better believe you have more of it on the tail".

I changed majors to computer engineering but aerospace is my real passion. When the money allows it I will get my private (only 5 measley hours LOL).



[edit on 15-2-2009 by ACEMANN]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I'm still open-minded about the conspiracy angle, but we need more facts. And unlike many, I am willing to wait for more data before rashly proclaiming it was an accident OR a coverup attempt.

On the one hand, the info about the plane being on fire prior to landing, and the lack of issues with the icing controls, makes me wonder.

But on the other, I think it's a ludicrous bit of logic to say that killing off an entire plane of people would be a "better" way to off someone. That's ridiculous. Regardless of how "into" 9/11 people are, I guarantee a tiny fraction actually know this person. And if she had died in a freak car accident or something, none here would have been the wiser. So no... bringing down a plane is hardly the way to escape attention, especially when plane crashes as pointed out, are a rare occurrence. Of course it's going to be thoroughly examined. MUCH more thoroughly than if she had gotten into a car crash. So that angle makes no sense at all to me.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by questioningall
 


Plane went down due to icing....that`s all!



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by starviego
I caught this comment on another forum:

www.freerepublic.com...
"MSNBC talking to a witness who said he got to within 10 feet of the fuselage. He is also saying that 9 other witnesses reported seeing the plane on fire before hitting the ground or house."


Witnesses also initially reported that the plane was a small private plane. So much for witness reliability.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
You can yak about icing all you want, but you guys make it sound like no one ever flew an airplane on a cold day before. Hey, this plane was made in Canada. You think they might know something about flying in icy conditions? The weather certainly could have been one factor in this disaster, but I feel there are also other factors involved. At least one investigator described it as a sudden, catastrophic event. Airplane flying normally one second, flying out of control the next. Mechanical failure, pilot error, sabotage, --at this point I'm not ruling anything out.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by starviego]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by starviego
 



Hard rime is a white ice that forms when the water droplets in fog freeze to the outer surfaces of objects. It is often seen on trees atop mountains and ridges in winter, when low-hanging clouds cause freezing fog. This fog freezes to the windward (wind-facing) side of tree branches, buildings, or any other solid objects, usually with high wind velocities and air temperatures between -2 °C (28 °F) and -8 °C (18 °F).
Hard rime formations are difficult to shake off; they have a comb-like appearance, unlike soft rime, which looks feathery or spiky, or clear ice, which looks homogeneous and transparent.
Scientists at meteorologically extreme places such as Mount Washington in New Hampshire often have to break huge chunks of hard rime off weather equipment, in order to keep anemometers and other measuring instruments operating.
Rime ice can accumulate on the leading edges and control surfaces of aircraft operating in certain meteorological conditions. One example is the Continental Connection Flight 3407 which operated under contract by Pinnacle Airlines Corp.’s Colgan Air unit, and crashed en route to Buffalo, NY on February 12, 2009. Wiki


I already stated that at 3:00pm we were experiencing wet snow mixed with ice. I was on the road on my way to the airport at this time. By 10:00pm, there was fog. The crew reported icing. Rime ice could very eaisly be the culprit in this crash.




top topics



 
38
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join