Plane Crash - Rep. Sen. Ted Stevens & former NASA Administrator, Okeefe on board?

reply to post by FCPSMME


Gawd!!!

The nuttiest, most "out there" theories just come out of the woodwork, don't they???

NO basis in fact, just a "guess" on something someone "thinks" they saw once...

NO actual research, just innuendo dropping?? Is this the way of the future for ATS?!?

Let's examine "lasers"...from space. or other airborne platforms. First the one Boeing has been developing ( Oh noes!!! Man, that makes them guilty, right there! ):

The ABL does not burn through or disintegrate its target. It heats the missile skin, weakening it, causing failure from high speed flight stress.

Extra! Extra! Read all about it...


Now, would someone who wants to run with this "theory" please explain how this system can "target" one lonely little single-engine airplane? That is NOT producing the sort of thermal signature that say, an ICBM in boost phase would?

Or, maybe it was the latest airborne "Advanced Tactical Laser weapon, designed to be mounted on the slower C-130 "Hercules" type airplane?:

On June 18, 2009 it was announced that the ATL was successfully fired in flight for the first time. The system was fired from a 46th Test Wing NC-130H aircraft while flying over White Sands Missile Range, successfully hitting a target board on the ground.

Advanced Tactical Laser

Sure...it's relatively new tech, let's roll this out, even though it's still a long way from operational testing, and off some high-profile individuals? [/sarcasm]


So many easier, far less public ways to murder someone.....

Here's another "conspiracy" angle for consideration? (not..)

The pilot was paid off to kill everyone....he was 62, probably had a terminal disease, wanted to have a big payoff to keep his loved surviving loved ones in comfort after he was gone....

...seems about as plausible as anything, right?

(We could keep at this, indefinitely, couldn't we??)

OR...here's another realistic scenario: O'Keefe cultivated a friendship (whether real, or for ulterior motives, who knows?) with ex-Sen. Stevens, because indeed, he (O'Keefe) had a vested interest in helping his corporation win this plum USAF contract for new tankers.

Always helps to have an old firebrand, a veteran of some forty years in Congress on your side, eh?

AND....Stevens was a former aviator (World War II)....perhaps he wasn't a fan of Boeing, and was seen as a possible ally for EADS (and Airbus) in the bidding for this contract??

See? I can postulate too...but I try to use reason and sanity. I have no facts, all supposition, but it's based on a few pieces I may have picked up, here and there, and filling in with guess work....

That's some mighty fine postulating there, son.
I guess what I really want to draw attention to is O'Keefe. IF this was not an accident, then who was the target? A disgraced (rightly or wrongly) former Senator? I doubt that, but it seems like everyone is only talking about Stevens. The passenger on board that flight who had the most influence is O'Keefe. No one is looking at him because no one is reporting on his current position with EADS.
So, forget what I said about the low-orbit laser, or missiles, etc. Pure speculation on my part I admit.
If a 5-mile no-flyover radius is standard protocol for small plane accidents, then let's not debate this much further. But if that's atypical, why did they establish the wide radius?
This is just a FORMER senator, and EX-Director of NASA. There wouldn't be an issue of national security for these people who are no longer in public office, right?

reply to post by FCPSMME

This is just a FORMER senator, and EX-Director of NASA. There wouldn't be an issue of national security for these people who are no longer in public office, right?

Are you kidding me?

Whenever there are people from mil, politics, science, corp scandals etc, that are questionable floating around in private life after being privy to information that could really do damage. They use damage control or prevention rather.

I can bet you at a 92% certainty it was not an accident.

You probably then ask why others haven't been whacked..obviously they were not a threat nor did they make anyone mad.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by superluminal11]

Sometimes when people leave office they decide to tell tales. Could be someone did not want that to happen.

reply to post by FCPSMME

....I heard that FAA (or some other agency) had instituted a no-fly 5-mile barrier around the crash site.

OK...thinking on this, haven't encountered (maybe just never paid attention) before...

Can't find other mentions, previous accidents, BUT it makes sense with high-profile events like this...to keep sightseers away!!

(The weather may still be crap, anyway...so that does the job for them...)

Again...too much wish for "intrigue" on a rather run-of-the-mill, yet tragic (every time a nice airplane is destroyed, I think it's tragic) accident.

My 'googling' found MSNBC video links to reporters on-scene...not like they are trying to "keep people away" or anything!!! BUT, you can'thave Tom, Dick and Harry tramping around, either on the ground, OR overhead...and risking mid-airs and more accidents.

Hence, the 'no-fly'. (not verified, I'll check NOTAMS..)

~~~~~~

Near Dillingham, right??

Found this: tfr.faa.gov...

And the text of the NOTAM:

FDC 0/7830 ZAN AK.. FLIGHT RESTRICTION, DILLINGHAM. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 91.137(A)(3) TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT FOR AIR FORCE SEARCH AND RESCUE ....

Again....we don't need Joe Blow in his Cessna fiddling around there and interfering with the SAR activities!

Here's another one, issued today (11th AUG) for the "KNIK" glacier, and a 'downed aircraft'....might be a coincidence.

tfr.faa.gov...

....TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT FOR DOWNED ACFT ON KNIK GLACIER 612241N/1475019W 3 NAUTICAL MILE RADIUS FROM THE SURFACE UP TO 2000 FEET AGL. ....

~~~~~~

Here's the main link, to see ALL TFRs. You can see one for the KSC, a launch from the complex on the 14th AUG.

tfr.faa.gov...




[edit on 11 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

Thanks for posting those notices! But there is no more SAR in effect. It's a crash inveestigation now. Granted, we should keep the gawkers away especially in an area known for treacherous wx conditions. Nevertheless, I didn't see a radius listed in your post of the Stevens crash no--fly alert, so we still have no confirmation if this is indeed a FIVE-mile radius. Any idea what the standard radius is (if any)?
I'm trying to see things from your perspective, so I imagine that perhaps the radius is determined by not only by the crash location, but also perhaps the geographic location when the craft first experienced trouble, and/or the amount of ground that contains wreckage.
I expect that you have some additional insight into this.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Here's another one, issued today (11th AUG) for the "KNIK" glacier, and a 'downed aircraft'....might be a coincidence.

tfr.faa.gov...

....TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT FOR DOWNED ACFT ON KNIK GLACIER 612241N/1475019W 3 NAUTICAL MILE RADIUS FROM THE SURFACE UP TO 2000 FEET AGL. ....

A flightseeing plane crashed into the glacier on Sunday. There were injuries, but I don't believe deaths. Then yesterday a National Guard resuce helicopter crashed trying to rescue the stranded (among whom were also 4 rescuer who had skied in to the victims on Monday.)
It is a comedy of errors but, fortunately, no deaths or major injuries have been reported.
www.adn.com...

reply to post by FCPSMME


I edited it down....it'sin the link...

Nevertheless, I didn't see a radius listed in your post of the Stevens crash...

5 NM.

Up to 10,000 MSL, in the Stevens case.

There isn't any 'standard' radius or altitude, depends on the reasons.

There was a TFR for Chelsea Clinton's wedding in Rhinesbeck last week, too.

If you look at the KSC launch (for "Space Operations") they just activate the various Restricted Areas that are already in place, and only active as notified/or as depicted on the charts (if they have regular operating hours).

Like I said, it varies...it's either printed on the charts, or issued via NOTAMs. They provide specifics.

Originally posted by mutly
www.alaskadispatch.com...

Smith had a long career in Alaska aviation, including a post as Alaska Airline's chief pilot in the state.

Smith grew up flying the Aleutian Chain in a Grumman Goose with his father, who flew a commercial route along the island chain.

things do happen, alot of experienced pilots dissapear, but i doubt some fog and a chance the plane was overloaded was the case this time. may of been, yes, but doesnt feel right to me.

from the same article...

Bridwell said Smith's death is especially devastating because Smith's son-in-law, Aaron Malone, was killed less than two weeks ago in a C-17 crash at Elmendorf Air Force Base.

i believe i mentioned the wrong type of plane on elmendorf last time i posted, either way more odd. i need to go dig into the one that went down in denali and see if any of the bodies mentioned are related to anyone on these two.

edited to add if they didnt have fuel at the lodge they took off from the tanks wouldnt of been full. may of had fuel there tho. also was no secondary fire which doesnt mean much of anything either, but the wreck was so bad not all bodies were able to be removed without tools. may of been in another article, ill go look.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by mutly]

For the pilots here, the METAR for Dillingham was 20010KT 1SM BR OVC002. For the non pilots, that means an overcast at 200' above ground level, 1 mile visibility with fog. The temp and dewpoint were both 9. That's 48 degrees F. Rain showers were reported in the area.

is that support of my post? sounds like typical weather for the area and a million times better than down the chain or across the beiring which he was known for in the past.

as i said, experienced pilots do crash and die. but usualy in worse conditions and planes than those. it may of just been an accident, but it feels fishy to me. and i dont mean harp or low orbit laser.

im also not just some cheechako makeing guesses outside in the lower 48. my grandparents homesteaded and my grandfather flew. he also fell out of the air 3 times before he decided he probably shouldnt buy another plane. but with all that said, all i am saying is it seems off to me. something doesnt seem right. that and the family must be cursed if the coincedences are to be believed.

reply to post by FCPSMME

I agree Sean O'Keefe was the target and it has everything to do with this battle between Boeing and EADS for the lucrative Air Force refueling plane contract. www.marketwatch.com...

Here's my thread on why Matt Simmons and Stevens/ O'Keefe were killed/ attempted in O'Keefe's case. www.abovetopsecret.com...

EADS had just developed the tech for planes to use biofuel made from algae. If EADS gets the AF contract, the Air Force would have required significant amounts of algae biofuel and Simmons would have stood to gain due to his Ocean Energy Institute and their algae biofuel investments. If Boeing gets the contract, it's business as usual for BP.

reply to post by jcrash


Oh, come on?

I agree Sean O'Keefe was the target and it has everything to do with this battle between Boeing and EADS for the lucrative Air Force refueling plane contract.

I know this is ATS and all, but not everything that happens in the world is a conspiracy!! Accidents DO happen!

To me, ATS is a clearing house of sorts, and sometimes when a least likely candidate for a "conspiracy" theory is presented, it should be examined and discussed.

This one is a compilation of WAY too much, and incorrect assuming...the "connect-the-dots" attempt is way, way off the mark...not even on the page.

I looked at your other thread...and was dismayed at the bobble-head agreements, the ones that missed the point of the contract battle, for the USAF tanker contract....it is NOT about "bio-fuels" (the algae aspect), nor any other sort of "synthetic" experimental fuels that are being developed...SOME already in use, which you will see if doing the proper research.

And, O'Keefe as a "target"?? Makes no sense...it's not as if losing the head of a corporation as large as EADS is going to cause their pull-out from the bidding process!!

I suggest more study of the situation involving "synthetic" fuels, and their intended purpose, and use.

Believe me, there is PLENTY of demand, still....and the good old petroleum-based brands are still going to be more cost-effective for a long time.

BTW...the use of 'naturally' derived aviation fuel products isn't going to help with the CO2 problem, so I don't think it's any "greener", in that sense. Might be less pollutants of other types, though....


The crash in Dillingham, AK, was an accident. Reading the paper today, it mentioned that the terrain elevation at impact is only 900 MSL.

Non-pilots, and people without such experience, probably have a different impression of flying, based on their occasional airline flights. (If they've ever even BEEN on an airliner!)

Toodling around at 900 feet? With the exception of the takeoff, or landing approach, the only OTHER reason to be that low, in those circumstances, was because of the increasingly poor weather.

It is called "scud running"....it is stupid, and dangerous. (Well, we can see that, can't we?)

But, it is sometimes quite common practice, especially in very rural areas, such as in Alaska. One other article I read said that the instances of such illegal behavior have diminished in AK...but that doesn't mean everyone has stopped it.

This pilot was likely over-confident, and knew the area well...heck, he'd probably done this same thing hundreds or thousands of times, and gotten away with it. There is ego involved, too. The guy wanted to get his clients to their lake of choice, and damned if HE was going to be the one to disappoint them! He was going to impress them with his incredible flying skills, and ability to navigate by landmarks alone, because he "knew those woods" like the back of his hand...anyway, that is the type of mindset that is common, up there.

When the weather turned to crap he had two options --- do what he did, and squeeze under the clouds, at treetop level, counting on his memory of the terrain, OR...(I assume he was instrument rated) climb up into the clouds and file an IFR flight plan, and navigate to safe areas, at a safe altitude.

But, that would mean tucking tail and returning to another airport, NOT the one his customers wanted to go to.

Finally....this is the most ridiculous way to "target" someone for a killing!! Airplane accidents are investigated so thoroughly, it is ludicrous to attempt something like this...I'm afraid too much popular fiction has clouded some people's vision of reality.

A car accident is far easier to set-up, and the investigations into those are far less intense. Dozens of other ways to kill off O'Keefe (IF he were "targeted") and make it look like an accidental death!