It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bermuda Triangle plane mystery 'solved'

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:50 PM

Bermuda Triangle plane mystery 'solved'

wo of the so-called Bermuda Triangle's most mysterious disappearances in the late 1940s may have been solved.

Scores of ships and planes are said to have vanished without trace over the decades in a vast triangular area of ocean with imaginary apexes in Bermuda, Florida and Puerto Rico.

But a new examination for a BBC series provides plausible explanations for the disappearance of two British commercial planes in the area, with the loss of 51 passengers and crew.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:50 PM
A very strange article actually. They offer up no real proof just a hypothesis to explain the disappearance of these aircraft. It strikes me as odd, especially this:

Those comments from sober-suited British civil servants opened the floodgates for conspiracy theorists, hack journalists and mischief makers, adding to the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle.

And even if they explain away the crash, it still admits no wreckage, bodies or debris were found in both cases.

Some times a report will come out in the MSM that just adds to the mystery, very odd!
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 13-9-2009 by kiwifoot]

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:49 PM
One plane running out of fuel- explanation 1.
One plane crashes-explanation 2.

WOW. A lot of research went into this one.

This case is hardly "Solved".

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:01 PM
I agree, two examples are merely a drop in the ocean in regards to the Bermuda Triangle mystery.

I dont know what to believe about the BT personally. I would say that I'm a fence-sitter because I haven't heard a good enough alternative reason for their disappearences but I don't agree with the generally accepted explanation of it just being "all in our collective heads", so to speak.

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:56 PM
I personally think that the Bermuda Triangle "conspiracy" (for lack of a better term) has something to do with naturally occurring magnetics or electrical anamolies that occur sometimes. I agree with you OP, this story is very strange, it's almost as if "ye protest too much". Why would the writer write a story only to give a mundane answer? Very strange.

[edit on 13/9/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 04:00 PM

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 05:48 PM
I've heard that insurance companies for boats and planes don't charge any different than usual to insure anything in the Bermuda Triangle, and if there was any statistical sign of more danger (whatever the source) you know they'd be there with one hand open and the other one pointing at the airliner's wallet!

This assumes that wherever I heard that is correct; I never verified it. I suppose one could write a large insurance company and ask if they have statistical evidence of more danger in the Bermuda Triangle. Tell them you're planning to start a cruise company and ask them for a quote!

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:33 PM
I believe that the two crashes in question were solved quite some time ago, like 50 years ago.

the planes in question were the first british airliners to be pressurized.
What was found out was that the aluminum alloy used to skin the aircraft had a very narrow range of operating temperatures.
When the aircraft was at cruising altitude the skin became very brittle due to the cold.
When the aircraft was pressurized and depressurized it put un-intended stresses on the skin of the aircraft.
after several cycles the skins would fail at a rivet hole, then blamy the broke up in flight.

Had nothing to due with the Bermuda Triangle

We covered this case as an exercise in a machine design class

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 10:49 PM
reply to post by punkinworks

yep, I think this was also close to the time they found out that square cornered windows in a pressurized aircraft were bad. The sharp 90 degree angle caused stress concentrations and the skin would crack at the corner. Which is why all large pressurized aircraft today have round corners on the windows.

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 05:16 AM
There is something about that place, just like the North and South Pole, read Charles Berlitz his books about it.
There are electro-magnetic anomalies there. Possibly even Portals to other dimensions. There are also reports about time-warps.

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:55 PM
first the truck with burning fertilizer to explain the Rendleshem forest incident now this? TPTB are pulling alot of @#! out of their @#$es. Do they think people are that stupid? I guess the sheeple can rest easier now that Big Bro has given them another line of crap to swallow. That article was a load that's for sure. Just another "outta the hat" explanation to make the fringe look like morons.

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:36 PM
reply to post by Grayarea

Yes i belive that the window thing came directly from subsequent lab studies of the failures of the two aircraft.
To the "Its just another cover story by TPTB" crowd, not so at all.
the loss of these two aircraft was a shock to the british aeronuatics comunity, and to air travel in general.

When subjected to turbulance at altitude the skin failed and the plane broke up, simple as that, no need for devils triangle and the like.

At a time when the industry was just really beginning to take hold, these two crashes had chilling effect. Air travel had to be viewed as safe if it was going to compete with rail and ship for long distances.
British engineers looked long and hard into the possible causes of the planes breaking up.
They took fuselages into the pressure chamber, then they took them into a pressure chamber that was chilled.
They cycled the fuselages through a number of take off to landing cycles at altitude, and they had failures.
Through exhaustive engineering they tracked the problem down to one main thing, an aluminum alloy that was not suitable to the task.
In some aluminum alloys, mechanical properties vary greately with temp.,
They get less ductile as they get colder.
This lead to stress cracks forming from rivet holes and the afore mentioned square corners on windows.
As the aircraft went through cycles of heating and cooling the skin also developed cracks.
These accidents lead to changes in the way aircraft are built, they learned more about how al alloys perform.
The process of changing physical properties with changing temp, is utilized today in the industry in "refigerator" rivets, or self tempering rivets.
The high quality rivets used on aircraft skins are made from an alloy whos pysicacal properties change greatly with temperature, but this time in reverse, they become less ductile as they warm up.
The rivets are kept chilled till use, and at this chilled temp they are very workable allowing for the heads to dished over without cracking.
But once they start to warm up they alloying elements move around into their preferred positions there by stregthening the rivet.

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:52 PM
reply to post by punkinworks

except that the 2 comet crashes occured on the other side of the atlantic;

South African Airways Flight 201 crashed outside of italy , and

BOAC Flight 781 sldo crashed into the med.

the aircraft type in question of the OP was a piston engined avro tudor IV


and the tudors all had round windows anyway:

is a tudor IV of the same type in the article.

[edit on 14/9/09 by Harlequin]

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 06:10 PM
reply to post by Harlequin

That looks alot like the Avro Tudor 4B shown on Wiki from 1955

These planes went down in 1948 and 1949, was there any design changes made before this picture in 1955 ?

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:04 AM
reply to post by Grayarea

the planes that went down were the same model - and all tudors had round windows


the one in the picture - G-AGRH Zephyr , was actually an avro super trader IV - a converted Tudor IV that also crashed in 1959 in turkey

[edit on 15/9/09 by Harlequin]

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:38 PM
Aww: they explained (according to themselves) two cases nonetheless: and did it with some theory. TWO cases huh?
They sent (as always) someone to drink some margarida then released some report: do you see any technnical data in the report? I don't.
Ask the guy to explain ALL these, or tell the guy to stay at home, or tell the guy to don't drink before writing.
5.1 Flight 19
5.2 Mary Celeste
5.3 Ellen Austin
5.4 USS Cyclops
5.5 Theodosia Burr Alston
5.6 Spray
5.7 Carroll A. Deering
5.8 Douglas DC-3
5.9 Star Tiger and Star Ariel
5.10 KC-135 Stratotankers
5.11 SS Marine Sulphur Queen
5.12 Raifuku Maru
5.13 Connemara IV

Charles Berlitz casted a bad light on the triangle, i know it, but this doe NOT mean that these incidents NEVER happened: sooo guy from BBC: explain them all if you can. Or shut up.

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:42 PM
here is a list of all the bermuda triangles missing aircraft -

missing aircraft

and here is all the missing ships -

missing ships

seems like they still have much more explaining to do if you ask me!!!

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:11 AM
...a month or so ago, i watched a documentary on the bermuda triangle - and - the conclusion it came to was that the boogey man is natural gas expulsions, which are fairly common and sometimes large enough to create an odd super storm thats quite vicious but not big (area wise)...

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:33 AM
reply to post by Wyn Hawks

Yeah, I knew a girl who did a science fair project on that. At least for boats, it could explain what happened to some of them. I was going to mention it in my last post, but I couldn't remember any of the details as to how it worked. (It was like 15 years ago :p) She did have this demonstration with a jar of water and a model boat and a simulated gas expulsion to show that the model boat sinks to the bottom pretty much instantly when it happens, but I forget all the science around it now.

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:43 AM
reply to post by Wyn Hawks

i think i have seen something similar. It showed the people doing an experiment where they released large air bubbles into the water under the boat, and yes it sank the boat fairly easily.

doesnt explain the planes though.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in