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: 9
38
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by riggs2099
When I heard about the 9/11 woman...I was just waiting for the conspiracy people to start flying out of the woodworks..
. I can see them all now...wearing tinfoil hats to fend off the governments satellites from reading thier thoughts
. I wonder what it's like to see conspiracies in almost everything...has to be a very paranoid life.


wow...we cannot all be smart like you...where did you find that "tinfoil hats" idea...? very creative, indeed.


...and what is so funny about tragic accident like that? You came here to laugh about conspiracy theories related to violent death of 50 people?




posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


dude, freedom of speech, just shut up!!!



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
It's too soon to jump to conclusions, but a few things about this story stand out:

Tinfoil Hat time:

It's barely been 24 hours since the crash and already the black boxes have been recovered and disclosed to the press. The cause of the crash has been determined to be ice on the wings. Doesn't it usually take days for this sort of stuff to come out? Seriously, that was fast. It seems they want to close this case quickly.

I read a few references that the plane nosed into the ground -- destroyed the house but not much else.

Okay, let's run with the idea that 911 was an inside job by an unknown group -- some faction of US military intelligence, Texas Oil Nazis, Mossad, Larry Silverstien, the Mafia. Who the hell knows. But in much of the 911 research I've read there is reference to the idea that the planes that day were remote controlled, reference to AWACS planes, military exercises, etc. The highjackers -- if they were even on board -- didn't need to fly the planes. They were set up and along for the ride like all the other victims that day. These planes were drones -- which helps explain the precision with which they were flown.

Now you've got Beverly Eckert 911 Widow -- rabble rousing for years, suing the government to open more investigations. It was never going to happen under Bush. But last week she meets Obama. Who knows what they talked about? She certainly asked Obama about investigations. And then a week later she dies in a fiery plane crash.

If you believe the remote control hypothesis as I do, surely it is a coincidence that the commuter plane took off from Newark Intl Airport -- the very same airport from which Flight 93 took of from before it crashed in Pennsylvania. The same crew of spooks installed a system on this commuter plane and brought it down hard. Just like they did in Shanksville.

This was a message to the new Obama administration. The mainstream media won't ever pick up on it, but be assured that the Obama people got the message loud and clear. These people wouldn't think twice about killing 3000 people -- another 50 ain't nothing. There will be no 911 investigations under Obama unless the administration is pressed.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Woww! I hate when people say "Omg put the tinfoil away!"

What does this have to do with extraterrestrials? Did they shoot it down!!??

Please. Stop say ignorant things.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by steve95988
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


dude, freedom of speech, just shut up!!!


The hypocrisy is strong with this one.







posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


yea i figured that out after the post lol, i love corona, and God bless the family of the crash victims!!



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Yacov
 


No I don't believe the geese story....

the news reported it as one, then two, then more, then a bunch...

one engine hit, then two....

then they lose the engines as the plane is being held up how?

Then they find out that one engine is still attached.

How did the pilot ditch the plane without flipping it when the engine remained intact and was suppose to disengage on impact?

How did they miss that an engine was attached to the wing? Were there divers removing/replacing evidence?

Did they find the flight recorders immediately or were they lost too? ...

the pilot, an older guy with all this experience flying the A10? was it? Anyways why the big switch of pilots for this guy just before apparently?... wow almost like it wasn't planned.

Why did they usher this guy off to be debriefed and didn't show up for how long afterwards? Maybe he didn't want to be quiet? Check out the thread on the hudson crash... lots of coincidences...

too many coincidences........ the dots line up.............. don't they?


Rgds



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by greshnik

...and what is so funny about tragic accident like that? You came here to laugh about conspiracy theories related to violent death of 50 people?


Not laughing at the death of those people...(but hey I didn't know any of them...anyways) I was laughing at all these people seeing things that just aren't there.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by questioningall
reply to post by lynn112
 



Sorry, but they have already said it was "above freezing" in the 30's on the ground.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but planes have continually flown in MUCH colder temps, besides when they are at 30000 feet up, the temps have to be VERY cold and sub zero. So at 16000 feet coming in for a landing, then all of a sudden ice builds up on the plane.......... No, sorry - they need to think of a "better" reason for the plane going down.

Also - see please an "edit" I made to the main post - just now.......

eyewitness -

sky lit up orange - before crash


that is NOT ice build up!


Modern planes have thermal de-icing gear, and it takes time for
ice to build up to make it fail due to lack of lift.

Also if it had been a stall, they could have got a warning off
of stall conditions.

The onboard black boxes should tell us something when the NTSB
is done looking over the data, if they do not modify the data.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
AMEN~!!!!!! & AMEN~!!!!!!

2nd line




Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by Chadwickus
 

You're always one of the first to jump in and blindly defend the official party line. THAT'S tiresome.


All I have said regarding this incident is how quickly some people have jumped to conclusions when the whole story hasn't been revealed yet.


Maybe if the government decided to tell the truth once in a while, people wouldn't be so suspicious.

But after Pearl Harbor, JFK, RFK, MLK, USS Liberty, TWA 800, Gulf of Tonkin, Waco, Oklahoma City, 9/11, Iraq, etc., etc., etc., they have every right to be suspicious.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Enemies of the US govt have a long history of dying in mysterious plane crashes. But I guess when you find an enemy who isn't rich enough to own a private plane, you just gotta make do with what you got eh? Breaking eggs to make an omelet etc.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by questioningall
reply to post by lynn112
 



Sorry, but they have already said it was "above freezing" in the 30's on the ground.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but planes have continually flown in MUCH colder temps, besides when they are at 30000 feet up, the temps have to be VERY cold and sub zero. So at 16000 feet coming in for a landing, then all of a sudden ice builds up on the plane.......... No, sorry - they need to think of a "better" reason for the plane going down.

Also - see please an "edit" I made to the main post - just now.......

eyewitness -

sky lit up orange - before crash


that is NOT ice build up!


For every 1000ft up... subtract 2 degrees Celsius for temperature from the ground temp...



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   
It would be interesting to see how much time it was from the point the plane encountered problems to the point it struck the ground. One minute? Two? Three? 10 Seconds? 5 Seconds? Was it enough time for pilots to radio? To communicate with each other so their voices were recorded on the voice box. What about the passengers and why didn't any of them try to use there cell phones? Was there not enough time? Was the plane diving straight down? Was it to chaotic to even contemplate trying to use a cell phone? Would a cell phone had even worked? Did the plane go down so fast that it was impossible for any of the above to occur? What was the planes altitude? ATS researchers are sure to shed some good light on this, I hope. Truly a sad story for all involved.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Hmm I wonder if it's just a coincidence that 5 days after the US claims that their Humvee Mounted Anti Aircraft Laser (HMAAL) had been completed. Interesting too that a Dash 8 is close to the size of the heron-turboprop (one of larger more common UAV's flown today), A UAV this new HMAAL had been designed to shoot down, meaning that the HMAAL was more than capable of shooting this plane down from quite some distance away without being seen or heard by anyone even, if they were on the plane. IF the HMAAL had been set to target the planes engines simultaneously it could have heated the engines slowly to disable the plane and then fuel tanks could have been superheated to create the deafening explosion heard and seen by everyone. The US may have seen it as a great opportunity to battle test the HMAAL in a real environment while eliminating to targets that could rip the 911 consipiracy wide open for all to see.

Sources...

US develops Anti-Aircraft laser

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Heron TurboProp UAV

www.defencetalk.com...

DASH-8

img.photobucket.com...



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by likeabull
It would be interesting to see how much time it was from the point the plane encountered problems to the point it struck the ground. One minute? Two? Three? 10 Seconds? 5 Seconds? Was it enough time for pilots to radio? To communicate with each other so their voices were recorded on the voice box. What about the passengers and why didn't any of them try to use there cell phones? Was there not enough time? Was the plane diving straight down? Was it to chaotic to even contemplate trying to use a cell phone? Would a cell phone had even worked? Did the plane go down so fast that it was impossible for any of the above to occur? What was the planes altitude? ATS researchers are sure to shed some good light on this, I hope. Truly a sad story for all involved.


The wiki page of this accident answers some of these questions:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leto

Originally posted by likeabull
It would be interesting to see how much time it was from the point the plane encountered problems to the point it struck the ground. One minute? Two? Three? 10 Seconds? 5 Seconds? Was it enough time for pilots to radio? To communicate with each other so their voices were recorded on the voice box. What about the passengers and why didn't any of them try to use there cell phones? Was there not enough time? Was the plane diving straight down? Was it to chaotic to even contemplate trying to use a cell phone? Would a cell phone had even worked? Did the plane go down so fast that it was impossible for any of the above to occur? What was the planes altitude? ATS researchers are sure to shed some good light on this, I hope. Truly a sad story for all involved.


The wiki page of this accident answers some of these questions:
en.wikipedia.org...


you mean to tell me there's a Wiki page on this already ?? ~!!!!!! Isn't that a little wierd ?? ~!! Without an official report, it's plastered on Wiki?? ~~!!




posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by baseball101
reply to post by questioningall
 


read about this ... here is a similar article on the subject .... very possible conspiracy, yet then again could be a coincidence? maybe?


maybe.
let's figure out the mathematical odds for that to be a pure coincidence.
including all relating data of course..

-



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo


you mean to tell me there's a Wiki page on this already ?? ~!!!!!! Isn't that a little wierd ?? ~!! Without an official report, it's plastered on Wiki?? ~~!!



Much like the entire premise of this thread.

Can't let pain and suffering get in the way of a good story now, can we?

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Chadwickus]




top topics



 
38
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join