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

Just a few thoughts to intrude on this private delirium.

If the gubberment wanted her dead, who in their right mind would go to the difficulty, risk, and expense of engineering a plane crash to achieve it. You're much too likely to be discovered, and too much risk of it just not working.

A household accident with an electrical appliance, those happen every day. No witnesses, no big news coverage, nothing, she's just dead.

This aircraft was likely flying into ice on autopilot, as the ice adhesion increased, the AP compensated with increased adjustments to the control surfaces and power levels. When it reached a point that it could no longer control the aircraft within its pre-defined flight parameters, it sounded a warning tone and handed the plane back to the flightcrew in an uncontrollable condition.

The only unanswered question (for me) are the reports of sputtering engines.

It's happened before, and it was a similar twin turboprop aircraft.

Of course when the NTSB releases the report saying just that, many here probably won't believe it. Utter the words 9 immediately followed by 11, and objectivity ends.

I just posted this in regards to this accident.

unreal..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

TheWelder

Originally posted by Retseh

...The only unanswered question (for me) are the reports of sputtering engines...

My first though when I heard that was it was just the engines bouncing off the rev limiters.
Can any of the pilots confirm if these type of engines have rev limiters?

TheWelder

I think that this Hudson Bay plane accident was a diversion/false-flag operation to diverse the masses to believe that these kind of airplane accident's are very usual, so the elite was then easy to kill Beverly Eckert by that 2-13-2009 airplane accident in Buffalo. And the stupid masses by the media believe that it's not conspiracy because that other plane accident happenend in NYC couble a weeks ago, when it fly to the Hudson Bay.

This is a classic propaganda problem-reaction-solution

Originally posted by TheWelder

Originally posted by Retseh

...The only unanswered question (for me) are the reports of sputtering engines...

My first though when I heard that was it was just the engines bouncing off the rev limiters.
Can any of the pilots confirm if these type of engines have rev limiters?

TheWelder

Hello.

While the Q400 may be propelled by propellers, it is not turned by pistons. The engines in the Q400 are Pratt & Whitney Canada PW150A turboprops rated at about 5000 shaft horsepower each. Essentially the PW150 is a gas turbine (jet engine), where the energy in the exhaust gas spins a turbine, which then runs to a gearbox and onto the propeller. They use turboprops over jets, because they burn 25% - 40% less fuel, and have 50% less emissions, with generally no loss in time.

The props are constant speed, where they essentially always turn at the same speed (According to the P&W website, it's about 1020 RPM), only the pitch of the blades is changed. I don't know the system used for maintaining the RPM in the PW150, however, it is probably ran by computers (known as FADEC). Computers are... very, very, very, accurate; all new engines today are FADEC, it is essentially used for the specific reason that it can run the engine to the maximum performance without EVER over stressing a part, and thus prolongs the life of the parts. Turboprops also have spool times, the power changes are not reflected instantly; it probably takes a few seconds to get there, thus plenty of time for FADEC to make accurate calculations and adjustments to ensure no overshoots.

I might add, if the prop is not controlled by FADEC, then it's probably some oil driver governor built with very, very, tight tolerances. Maybe WeedWhacker could comment... Of course, the compressor can have problems too... however, it IS controlled by FADEC, so it's unlikely it would of hit any limit, then jump back down. Of course, problems with the compressor are known as 'compressor stalls', but these typically make very loud poping, or banging, sounds, with ascosiated fireballs out the exhaust or intake. This can happen when ingesting debris, such as ice.

However, the aircraft apparently underwent severe pitch and roll excursions. Now, if you've ever been to an airshow, you'll find that as the angle to the propellor changes, the sound changes. Infront of the prop you get a... sound.., to the side of the prop you get a loud cracking, whipping, sound from the props approaching the speed of sound, and behind the prop you tend to get more of deep exhaust sound. Therefore, I think the strange sounds the people on the ground heard was due to there perspective on the aircraft changing rapidly.

www.liveleak.com...

[edit on 18/2/2009 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz


Great info, thank you.

TheWelder

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The NTSB found that the autopilot was on during final approach. This Is something a student pilot would never do.
One thing I question. With a Pilot and Co-pilot in control of the aircraft, why would they leave the autopilot on? They wouldn't.
But what if the autopilot was activated from an outside source and it executed a pre-programmed routine to bring the plane down.
Possible? Yes.
If you remember last year all planes were grounded for a week to perform an FAA inspection of a so-called critical part failure. This was the only time in FAA history that they grounded all the planes at once. A lot of profitable small airlines failed but the large airlines, running in the red and getting subsidies from the government did not complain and was not finically affected.
Is it possible to install changes to the firmware on the, airplane, to interface the radio communications to the autopilot? Yes.
Beverly Eckert was a threat by opening up a can of worms. A civil trial would expose information that would link the Bush administration to the planning of the 911 attract on the towers. By visiting Obama and exposing some of the 911 conspiracies she signed her death warrant.

hi, anonymous

I tend to agree with you!

and

remote control, autopilot-landing, is very usual nowadays:

en.wikipedia.org...

An autopilot-controlled landing on a runway and controlling the aircraft on rollout (i.e. keeping it on the centre of the runway) is known as a CAT IIIb landing or Autoland, available on many major airports' runways today, especially at airports subject to adverse weather phenomena such as fog.

so, yes, I agree that someone could remote piloted aircraft into a house...

(not saying that it happened, but it's very possible)





my theory is that pilots didn't see where they were going
(they thought everything was ok, but something happened to autopilot
and moved them way off course)

until it was too late

foul play or not we will probably never know




[edit on 18-2-2009 by donhuangenaro]

[edit on 18-2-2009 by donhuangenaro]

The official report will show icing and pilot error.... The plane stalled rolled and crashed due to icing and the auto pilot was engaged leaving little time for an inexperienced pilot(less than 110 hrs piloting this airframe)to react......I do not believe there is any sort of a conspiracy here....Just multiple errors culminating in a tragic but almost predictable conclusion....sorry....DIRT

It would be very interesting to run actuarial tables-- those calculations the insurance industry uses to predict your life expectancy or any other insurable event-- against the facts in this plane crash. What are the odds that a person involved in a potentially damaging 9/11 lawsuit and discovery investigation would die in a fluke air disaster days after meeting the president of the United States? I'm not suggesting cause and effect, simply trying to discern "God's will' or "bad luck" from intentional subterfuge.

Viewed from this perspective, I imagine we'd find most of the official stories fed us by the media and government are such astronomical long shots that they cannot possibly be true. Any gamblers or bookies out there willing to run the numbers here?

Victimology

A few of the other victims of the crash also have intesting resumes


--a "security guard" from Tiberias, Israel, was on his way to visit a relative when he boarded Flight 3407.

--Four employees of Northrop Grumman Amherst Systems, a defense contractor in Williamsville(electronic warfare and threat simulation systems)

--a 'consultant' and frequent overseas travelor who lived in Mumbai, India

--a 'consultant' to the bottled water and beverage industry, who "traveled frequently to Iraq to help the military set up a bottled water plant there"


The International?
--an employee of Barclays Capital, a New York City-area investment firm

--an director of W. P. Carey & Co., a New York City investment management firm

reply to post by questioningall

Here is one thing you may find interesting, Dennis Dirkmaat, who led the forensic investiagtion into the crash in PA on 911 will be heading the investigation. That should give you folks something to chew on.www.mercyhurst.edu...

hi, anonymous

I tend to agree with you!

and

remote control, autopilot-landing, is very usual nowadays:

en.wikipedia.org...

Hello.

Autoland is done by ILS. Essentially radio signals are sent out constantly, and the instruments in the aircraft interpret these to find out the lateral and vertical position of the plane. These signals are constant, and do not change; the avionics will interpret them; so it's not 'remote control'. It's not possible to make the aircraft land short; the signals will always come from one point. (It MAY be possible to change the angle, but that wouldn't cause a crash, and if it did, it isn't consistent with that we've seen. A shallow angle would take our many more houses).

The autopilot can fly the approach, however, the pilot will ALWAYS have to disengage the autopilot at or above 200 feet IIRC; this is because the Q400 as it is NOT autoland equiped. Autoland is essentially where the autopilot flies down the ILS signal then automatically flares for a relatively soft touchdown. The Q400 can NOT do this. In any approach, there is something called 'minimums', which is the lowest altitude the aircraft can fly on any approach, before going missed approach.

upload.wikimedia.org...

That was the approach the aircraft was flying. Minimums was 918 feet high, above the runway. If the runway was not in sight at that point even with ILS, autoland... etc..., the plane is GOING AROUND. Also, the plane crashed about five miles from the start of the runway, which according to the chart, the aircraft wouldn't have even intercepted the glide slope, and had only just intercepted the localiser.

If there was any mismatch between instruments, it would of been very easy to see a mismatch on the Navigation Display (ND), and Standby altimeter. Also, the plane apparently had an aircraft upset. The autopilot is incapable of making such maneuvers. Autopilot can easily be disconnected, and the controls on the Q400 are hydraulically BOOSTED, it is NOT fly-by-wire; therefore flying the plane into the ground via software is not possible.

Engines are indeed at 1020RPM on takeoff and landing. Propellor control is indeed FADEC.

[edit on 19/2/2009 by C0bzz]

The Mystery Victim of Flt 3407. Ahhhhhh!!


www.buffalonews.com...
The names of 49 victims from Flight 3407 are now public, but the identity of the 50th remains a mystery and may never be released.

If the people who died in the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 had been in a bus or any kind of motor vehicle, the law would require their names to be released, says Robert J. Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government. ....

Freeman said the crash records are maintained by a private entity. ....

“Why are people resistant to releasing a name?” Freeman said. “What is the downside of disclosure of the name?”


---------------

Comment: I've never heard of family members being asked if they want the names of their dead relatives being kept secret. This whole thing sounds bogus.

[edit on 20-2-2009 by starviego]

reply to post by questioningall


Has anyone here have a tape of the early morning reporting on WABC TV NY channel 7 ?

I was up at 5:30 on 02/13/09 flipped on the TV and heard the reports for the first time on this crash.

A youngish woman reporting for WABC was "live" on the scene and approached two guys about twenty years old to ask them what they saw.

They said they were up late watching TV, heard the plane loud and low, ran outside and looked out to see what was happening. They said "the right engine was on fire" and was in trouble. "It was going up and down and then spun around and fell flat to the ground".

This part of the report wasn't aired again to my knowledge. I had to leave for work.
I just thought it was a simple horrible accident. Later, I wasn't so sure.

During the course of the day I heard the story focus on "icing" as the sole cause of the crash. When I got back home I listened to Bill Ritter on EyeWitness News report that they recovered the Black Boxes and that they didn't have much to indicate what happened on them.

Here is what I thought was peculiar... Witnesses did report that one Engine had all the blades of the propellers snapped off and the other one didn't.

This strongly suggests that when the plane fell flat to the ground, one rotor was running/spinning and the other one wasn't.

Then I heard who was on the plane. I already knew she had lawsuits to reopen the 9/11 investigation. Beverly was not going to go away.

The Illuminati love Prime Numbers...

A missile would not suddenly cause the plane to dive into the ground, if anything, a missile strike would instantly create shrapnel and cause fragments of the plane to be found in a wider area. Also, a missile strike which does not cause a catastrophic explosion would not cause the aircraft to suddenly drop off the air. Any attack on the aircraft would have been at least somewhat reported by the pilots. If the attack was so severe that the pilots were unable, then there would be no plane to strike the ground in such a confined area. Further, you would see evidence of an explosion by looking at the fuselage for torn metal.

reply to post by mcguyvermanolo


Now that is interesting, why hasn't the news mentioned these "eye witnesses?" Saying the plane engine was on fire is significant - that means no icing.....

If they don't release that info on MSM - then it DEFINITELY is a conspiracy.

Otherwise they wouldn't hide the eye witness information.

reply to post by mcguyvermanolo


I have seen that interview a number of times and never heard those two boys state that it was on fire, only that they heard "popping" sounds. Hence my question about rev limiters.

I have also seen the video from the gentleman who was driving and watched its final seconds, and he never said anything about engines on fire?

Nor did the fireman who watched it fall say anything about engines on fire.

I would like to see that clip, but alas being on dialup I is taking me a long time to go thru all the clips.

From the after footage I saw, both engines had all of the prop blades ripped off.

I am trying to believe what i saw in the footage, while reminding my self that there are way easier ways to get rid of someone. This level of deception is just not necessary for a single person of interest. Not too mention, just look at all the coverage, the odds of a "mistake" being made while perpetrating something of this magnitude are pretty good.

If someone could demonstrate how this was easier to achieve than just getting rid of a single person say, via a motor vehicle accident, or a victim of poisoning, or even simpler say a victim of CO poisoning in their own home due to non maintenance of their heating system. I am all ears. Realistically, if you have the resources to achieve an "accidental" plane crash, any of the scenarios I mentioned are far simpler and have inherently less risk of being discovered

If you look at the "facts" that are being presented, it indicates what I questioned earlier. That, due to pilot error and over compensation, this was an accident. As is now being discussed by the ntsb and being corroborated by various independent pilots.

Even the spokesman from bombardier got it wrong in stating this plane had anti ice. Something that has already been discussed in this thread. This plane has de-icing capability.

Perhaps I am way off base here, and if that is the case, someone set me straight please.

TheWelder

reply to post by Bombeni


Unless you know about what you speak, keep your ignorant-minded comments to yourself and maybe you'll learn something.
The truth exists that all ingredients for conspiracy are alive and well in this case.
The physical as well as the exculpatory evidence suggests anything but pilot or mechanical error.
This aircraft was absolutely not downed by icing or any other atmospheric phenomena, as so quickly suggested by the so-called experts.
The truth has not been told and probably never will.
This disaster is man-made, and the two pilots were merely among the victims.

Popping sounds, that sounds like a compressor stall... possibly from ingestion of some foreign objects............... like ice.....

Originally posted by starviego
The Mystery Victim of Flt 3407. Ahhhhhh!!


www.buffalonews.com...
The names of 49 victims from Flight 3407 are now public, but the identity of the 50th remains a mystery and may never be released.

If the people who died in the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 had been in a bus or any kind of motor vehicle, the law would require their names to be released, says Robert J. Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government. ....

Freeman said the crash records are maintained by a private entity. ....

“Why are people resistant to releasing a name?” Freeman said. “What is the downside of disclosure of the name?”


---------------

Comment: I've never heard of family members being asked if they want the names of their dead relatives being kept secret. This whole thing sounds bogus.

[edit on 20-2-2009 by starviego]

Because it was JIMMY HOFFA!! I'm sorry I couldn't resist! I think you are way off base and really reaching!