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: 16
38
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sueloujo
 


The de-icer only works on the leading edges. It does not remove ice from the wings. There was snow and ice earlier in the day. There was a light snow that night. Ice could have accumulated on the wings. It could also have accumulated on the control surfaces. The plane dropped 800 ft in 5 seconds. The plane came down intact.




posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Sounds like the media is looking to all kinds of different stories to find one that sticks.

So many things, now just do not make sense with the crash. The immediate - oh it was icing - and that is final, yet the plane was facing in an opposite direction, etc.

There seems to be too many questions here - and too many people trying to put a "firm" cause on it immediately, yet leaving unanswered questions. Must be the same people who were in charge of what information got out during 911.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by darkelf
 


I was watching channel 2, and interestingly the NTSB stated that they are not sure yet if icing was a problem. But the news ticker went right to "icing not a problem" Can't trust the MSM.

TheWelder



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWelder

flaps were set to 5

gear was dropped

flaps to 15( they are saying flaps only made it to 10)

TheWelder



NTSB said that at 10 was when they began to lose control and they tried to set it back to 5.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWelder
 


Yeah, I caught that too. Too bad all the evidence of icing got burned up. No one reported severe icing, but I don't know if those other aircraft had de-ice or anti-ice. De-ice cycles and anti-ice is constant. And its only good for the leading edges. If the control surfaces had rime ice, it fall like a rock.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
reply to post by TheWelder
 


Ok, I think I may have misunderstood. What channel are you watching? I have Time Warner Cable.


I was watching channel 2(wgrz) Interestingly, no sooner had the NTSB stated they were not sure YET if icing was responsible, the news ticker went right to "icing not a problem"
you just can't trust MSM.

TheWelder



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
reply to post by sueloujo
 


The de-icer only works on the leading edges. It does not remove ice from the wings. There was snow and ice earlier in the day. There was a light snow that night. Ice could have accumulated on the wings. It could also have accumulated on the control surfaces. The plane dropped 800 ft in 5 seconds. The plane came down intact.


Indicator lights showed deicing equipment on the tail, wings and prop seemed to be working, and both engines appeared to be 'working normally'.


These aircraft are built to cope with "light" snow as you put it.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWelder
Auto-shake and auto-push were activated 26 seconds before end of recording

Why was auto-push(nose down position) activated? The only reason I can imagine is that the crew was no longer able to perform this plane-saving maneuver themselves. They were unconcious by this time.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by starviego]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf

Originally posted by TheWelder

flaps were set to 5

gear was dropped

flaps to 15( they are saying flaps only made it to 10)

TheWelder



NTSB said that at 10 was when they began to lose control and they tried to set it back to 5.


Yeah, was trying to type, keep notes in order and listen..I failed some.

TheWelder



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWelder
Auto-pilot was disengaged by the initial upset

Auto-shake and auto-push were activated 26 seconds before end of recording

pitch and roll maximum numbers

31° pitch up -> 45° pitch down

then it rolled

left 46° -> 105° right

G-forces went from .75g's to 2g's

last radar hits were at 1800ft msl and 1000ft msl, it took 5secs to drop those 800ft


And it still crashed right-side up? Was this some kind of aerobatic aircraft?



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
reply to post by TheWelder
 


Yeah, I caught that too. Too bad all the evidence of icing got burned up. No one reported severe icing...



The CVR recorded the crew saying they had significant icing. Is there a difference?

TheWelder



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by starviego

Originally posted by TheWelder
Auto-shake and auto-push were activated 26 seconds before end of recording

Why was auto-push(nose down position) activated? The only reason I can imagine is that the crew was no longer able to perform this plane-saving maneuver themselves. They were unconcious by this time.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by starviego]


Because the avionics were detecting stall conditions, at that point its automatic. Wether or not hands are on the yoke, but that is the point, to alert the captain. The captain applied throttle after that, so someone was conscious.

TheWelder



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by sueloujo
url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread436754/pg15#pid5830390]post by sueloujo[/url]
 



Indicator lights showed deicing equipment on the tail, wings and prop seemed to be working, and both engines appeared to be 'working normally'.


These aircraft are built to cope with "light" snow as you put it.


The de-ice on the tail, wings and prop are rubber bladders on the leading edges of these surfaces. The bladders are cycled on each area on to inflate then off to deflate. Inflating the boots breaks up the ice. They use pneumatic air so they only inflate one area at a time until all leading edges have been inflated/deflated then the sequence starts again. Anti-ice is electrically heated and is constant.

The wings are curved in a way to give a plane the best lift. The whole shape is for best aerodynamics. If too much ice had accumutated on the wings or other flight surfaces, it would actually change the shape of the wing or surface and cause it to loose lift. The light snow we were getting was both wet and icy. Hope I explained it a little better for you.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
The question the NTSB sidestepped at this point , because it was asked by both the family's of the victims and the press, is, "did the pilot over-correct, is that why it went nose-up so far?"

???any pilots have any opinion on that?

TheWelder



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWelder

The CVR recorded the crew saying they had significant icing. Is there a difference?

TheWelder


Light, moderate and severe, I think are the actual terms. The crew said significant icing which is not one of their terms. NTSB acted like it made a difference. I think they really don't want to guess what the crew meant by significant.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWelder
The captain applied throttle after that, so someone was conscious.

What is your source for that? I heard throttles were set to 'full' but don't remember a time.

And what about the cockpit voice recorder? One would think what the crew were saying in those last seconds would be of importance.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by starviego

Originally posted by TheWelder
The captain applied throttle after that, so someone was conscious.

What is your source for that? I heard throttles were set to 'full' but don't remember a time.

And what about the cockpit voice recorder? One would think what the crew were saying in those last seconds would be of importance.


From the NTSB "briefing", after the the flaps and gear were moved the shaker and push came on after that the throttles were applied. It was a bit confusing as they were referring to 2 timelines. one being from the last CVR recording and one being from data recorder.
The CVR last recording was before the data recorders last data.
Perhaps I have those 2 reversed(throttle and flaps), but, none the less the throttles were applied in those last seconds.

I understand what you are saying though. One would imagine the pilot and crew would have said something in that time period. Perhaps it was just explicitives
and thats why its not being said. I know I would have had some "choice" words on the way down.

I know this is a long shot and perhaps somewhat inappropriate, but what if they were FWI?
Can that happen anymore? I know in the past some pilots were busted for it.

TheWelder

Ps. great thread, good discussion.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
It is known that the FBI was at the scene of the crash. Why was the FBI there?

The NTSB wanted to know the same thing, after dozens of FBI agents popped up at the scene of the crash of UA 553, a Boeing 737, near Chicago's Midway airport back on 12-08-72. That was the one that killed Dorothy Hunt, the wife of watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt, and 44 others.

In a letter to the NTSB chairman, then FBI director William Ruckelshaus answered:

"The FBI has primary investigative jurisdiction in connecton with the Destruction of Aircraft or Motor Vehicle (DAMV) Statute, TItle 18, Section 32, U.S. Code, which pertains to the willful damaging, destroying or disabling of any civil aircraft in interstate, overseas or foreign air commerce. In addition, Congress specifically designated the FBI to handle investigations under the Crime Aboard Aircraft (CAA) Statute, Title 49, Section 1472, U.S. Code, pertaining among other things, to aircraft piracy, interference with flight crew members and certain specified crimes aboard aircraft in flight, including assault, murder, manslaughter and attempts to commit murder or manslaughter."
--From the book "The Yankee and Cowboy War" by Carl Oglesby, c. 1976


Sounds like the FBI ain't there because of no damn icing theory!!!! What do they know, and when are they going to deny it?




[edit on 15-2-2009 by starviego]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by starviego
It is known that the FBI was at the scene of the crash. Why was the FBI there?



It is? I think thats the only agency I haven't seen there, or in town.
But again, the NTSB spokesman, did make that comment about "ice" being the perfect crime.
I just can't get that comment out of my mind.

TheWelder



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by starviego
It is known that the FBI was at the scene of the crash. Why was the FBI there?

The NTSB wanted to know the same thing, after dozens of FBI agents popped up at the scene of the crash of UA 553, a Boeing 737, near Chicago's Midway airport back on 12-08-72. That was the one that killed Dorothy Hunt, the wife of watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt, and 44 others.

In a letter to the NTSB chairman, then FBI director William Ruckelshaus answered:

"The FBI has primary investigative jurisdiction in connecton with the Destruction of Aircraft or Motor Vehicle (DAMV) Statute, TItle 18, Section 32, U.S. Code, which pertains to the willful damaging, destroying or disabling of any civil aircraft in interstate, overseas or foreign air commerce. In addition, Congress specifically designated the FBI to handle investigations under the Crime Aboard Aircraft (CAA) Statute, Title 49, Section 1472, U.S. Code, pertaining among other things, to aircraft piracy, interference with flight crew members and certain specified crimes aboard aircraft in flight, including assault, murder, manslaughter and attempts to commit murder or manslaughter."
--From the book "The Yankee and Cowboy War" by Carl Oglesby, c. 1976


Sounds like the FBI ain't there because of no damn icing theory!!!! What do they know, and when are they going to deny it?




[edit on 15-2-2009 by starviego]


that is interesting, I also find it very interesting, that they have moved all the people out that live in the area.

Maybe the houses that are right next to the crash, the people could be moved, but lots of people and they are not allowing them back in? Why such a wide perimeter? They have already searched the area for debris.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join