Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:55 pm Post subject: Planes bring down skyscrapers and birds bring down planes...
Is someone aiming to bump off bankers involved in delicate negotiations to prop up the US currency?
We have had stories about planes bringing down skyscrapers (9/11) now we have stories about birds bringing down planes...
Most passengers spoke about fires breaking out in the plane whilst in the air?
Was it shot down?
UPDATE: Bank Of America: 'Large Grp' Of Workers On NYC Plane
Dow Jones
January 15, 2009: 05:43 PM ET
(Updates with information from Wells Fargo)
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
Bank of America Corp. (BAC) confirmed that a "large group" of employees were on a plane that crashed into the Hudson River Thursday afternoon.
According to a spokeswoman with the Transportation Security Administration, US Airways flight 1549 took off from Laguardia Airport at 2:49 p.m. carrying about 148 passengers and five crew members. The plane was bound for Charlotte.
US Airways Group Inc.'s (LCC) chief executive has said everyone is off the plane and accounted for.
Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) had three employees on the plane and "all three are safe," said spokeswoman Mary Eshet. Wells Fargo employs about 20,000 people in the Charlotte area following its recent acquisitions of Wachovia Corp.
The plane went down around 3:30 p.m. EST, according to a New York Fire Department spokesman.
NTSB: Right Engine Still Attached to US Airways Plane
Last Edited: Saturday, 17 Jan 2009, 11:49 AM EST
Created: Saturday, 17 Jan 2009, 11:47 AM EST
An Airbus 320 US Airways aircraft that went down in the Hudson River is seen in New York, Thursday, Jan. 15, 2009. (AP Photo/Edouard H. R.
NEW YORK (AP) -- Investigators now say the right engine of the miracle US Airways jet is still attached to the airplane.
A spokeswoman for the National Transportation Safety Board said Friday that both engines broke apart from the jet after it hit the water. But on Saturday, NTSB spokesman Peter Knudson said the engine is still on the plane. He said visibility in the water was so bad earlier that divers could not see the engine.
Chivalry proved to be very much alive on the flight, full of business executives from Bank of America, Wachovia and TIAA-Cref.
"Women and children first!" the men shouted as 85-year-old Lucille Palmer, on her way to celebrate her great-grandson's birthday, was helped to the front.
Sanderson hung back and helped a woman with a 6-month-old baby through the door. She stood on the wing with the child in her arms while people in the rafts yelled to her.
"Just throw the baby to me," one woman urged. She reluctantly dropped the infant down and was then helped into the raft.
Most people readily abandoned their coats and carry-on luggage - grabbing yellow life vests and seat cushions instead as they headed for the exits.
One woman wouldn't get off without her luggage and had to be shoved through the door, Sanderson said. He went back and retrieved her purse to calm her.
Sanderson said he was the last passenger off the plane. He ditched when a rescue boat bumped the disabled jet, sending more water cascading inside.
'God put me on that plane'
"God put me in there for a reason," he said at Palisades Medical Center in North Bergen, N.J., where he was being treated for exposure.
"I was supposed to take the later flight, and God put me on that plane."
After they disembarked, some passengers boarded life rafts. Others stood on the wings of the half-submerged aircraft waiting for help.
Retired detective Wendell Fox, a fraud investigator for Bank of America, used a BlackBerry that passengers were sharing to call his wife, Terri, in Cornelius, S.C.
"He told me he was all right, that the plane had crashed into the Hudson River and that he'd call as soon as he was on dry land," she said.
"Considering the circumstances, he seemed pretty composed."
Rescue boats arrived quickly, but a few people ended up in the water, including Barry Leonard, 55, who tried to swim to shore but quickly thought better of it.
"He tried to swim to shore, but he realized about a minute into it that there was no way he could make it," said Leonard's wife, Sherri, from their home in Charlotte. "That's just him. He's definitely a leader and a survivor."
Leonard, CEO of a New York home furnishings manufacturer, commutes back and forth from his office in New York to his home in Charlotte. He was recovering from minor injuries Thursday night, also at Palisades Medical Center.
Most passengers taken to hospitals - including a 4-year-old girl and a toddler boy - were suffering from exposure and being treated with warm air and IV fluids. A few had broken bones or cuts and bruises. And there were, of course, emotional scars.
Dozens of passengers have had an amazing escape after their plane came down in New York. One theory is that the jetliner hit a flock of birds. It may sound like a freakish event, but "bird strikes" are an age-old problem for the aviation industry.
An Airbus 320 US Airways aircraft that went down in the Hudson River is seen in New York
The plane ditched in the Hudson River shortly after take-off
Even the earliest pioneers of flying machines, the Wright Brothers, had trouble with birds.
In 1905 they wrote in their diary: "Chased flock of birds for two rounds and killed one which fell on top of the upper surface and after a time fell off when swinging a sharp curve."
No-one was hurt in that incident, but seven years later another aviation trailblazer was not so lucky.
Nicknamed "The Birdman", Calbraith Rogers was the first person to fly across the US. Months after he completed his historic journey, he flew his biplane into a flock of birds and crash landed, dying of a broken neck.
According to reports from the time, a seagull jammed the controls in Rogers' plane.
Danger of flocks
With modern passenger planes, the technology is clearly more advanced, but the dangers posed by birds have not gone away.
Airport authorities around the world try to scare birds away - usually by driving around the airport in a truck with speakers, blasting out calls from birds of prey.
Kevin Poormon, a senior research engineer at the University of Dayton in the US state of Ohio, says the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) stipulates planes must be able to withstand a strike from an 8lb (3.6kg) bird.
We're talking about large chunks of metal crashing around inside an engine
Chris Yates
Aviation expert
Pilot hailed for 'miracle'
"Aircraft are being struck every day by birds - the reason you don't hear about them so much is they are designed to take these impacts," he told the Associated Press.
"But once you get to large flocks or large birds striking at a critical moment, that's where these events hit the news."
It is thought that the plane involved in Thursday's incident had both of its engines taken out after hitting a flock of Canada geese - which can weigh from about 3lb to 12lb.
According to the Bird Strike Committee, a US-based organisation, a 12lb Canada goose struck by an aircraft at lift-off would generate a force equivalent to a 1,000lb object being dropped from a height of 10ft (3m).
Rarity of 'double strike'
Chris Yates, an aviation expert for Janes Information Group, says plane engines are very delicate and a bird such as a Canada goose being sucked into the engine would prove catastrophic if it smashed the rotor blades.
"The debris will be spread around the rest of the engine," he told the BBC.
"We're not talking about bird bones here, we're talking about large chunks of metal crashing around inside an engine - it can impact virtually any part of the engine."
But he says instances where both engines are hit by birds are extremely rare - and bird strikes are a problem for large passenger jets only on take-off and landing, because jets generally fly at a higher altitude than birds.
Overall, statistics from the US authorities compiled by the FAA suggest some 219 people have died since 1988 in incidents involving animals colliding with planes.
The FAA received almost 76,000 reports of bird strikes between 1990 and 2007.
For the 18-year period, reports were received of 11 deaths in eight separate incidents involving bird strikes in the US.
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:43 am Post subject:
well flock me _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
I agreeI've heard of this before.
But either both engines failed or the pilot panicked and tried to over correct the planes computers? Anyone remember the 1st pubic Airbus flight in france? Whoops. _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Popular mechanics of 9/11 fame now joins the storytelling.
Lets assume two birds hit the engines. At what height did this occur and did the pilot have enough height to then glide the plane down?
How high do these birds fly? Why then did they immediately state the engines fell off the wings and the wings remained intact?
Did the Hudson Plane Crash Pilot's Glider Experience Help Him Land Flight 1549?
US Airways Flight 1549
Chesley B. Sullenberger, the US Airways pilot whose splashdown in the Hudson River yesterday has been described as perfect, miraculous and even heroic, has a storied aviation career. He was a flight instructor, an airline accident investigator, an F-4 pilot in the United States Air Force, and, maybe most relevant to yesterday’s crash landing, a certified glider pilot. More specifically, Sullenberger has earned a “C” badge from the Soaring Society of America (SSA), which oversees gliding (or soaring) clubs around the country. So what exactly is gliding, and what does it have to do with safely parking an Airbus 320 in a river?
Soaring is still a relatively small aviation niche, where pilots learn to fly small, unpowered gliders. These specialized planes are either towed into the air by powered planes, or launched by ground vehicles or winches, much like a kite. Staying aloft means watching the air and ground for potential sources of lift—a city or town, for example, tends to release rising hot air, and mountain ranges can whip winds upwards in waves. Glider pilots must fly with a Federal Aviation Administration examiner, and pass a written test, to receive certification. And although the SSA’s badges have no direct relation to certification—one pilot we spoke to referred to them as “gliding merit badges”—they can generally indicate the amount of time a pilot has spent in the cockpit of gliders, meeting specific knowledge, distance and maneuver criteria. Sullenberger’s “C” badge is the third in a series of ABC ratings, received after gliding for at least an hour without an instructor, and landing within a relatively small area (500 ft) with an instructor.
It’s impossible to say for sure whether Sullenberger’s gliding experience played a part in yesterday’s landing (he has yet to speak to the press about the incident), but when Russ Hustead, a gliding instructor and owner of Arizona-based Sky King Soaring, first saw the news, he had a hunch. “I hypothesized right away that this pilot, whoever he was, was a glider,” says Hustead, who specializes in motorgliders, which can take off under their own power. Most of Hustead’s customers are commercial pilots, including airline captains, looking to add a glider rating to their licenses. “Part of my training is getting them over that initial fear, of the engine failing,” he says. “Airline pilots think, if they only have two engines, the worst that could happen is you could lose one. Gliders realize that the worst that could happen is you lose both.”
Aircraft designed for gliding typically have glide ratios of 30 or 60 to 1, meaning that, with 1 mile of altitude, they could travel for 30 or 60 miles before landing. An Airbus 320 has a significantly worse glide ratio, but the basic rules of gliding, Hustead says, are universal. “If you lose all your power, your nose is pitched up, and you’re going to reach a stall in a matter of seconds. Unless the pilot pushes the nose down, and starts accelerating, he’s a dead duck.” Hustead believes that Sullenberger’s glider instincts kicked in quickly. “When the engine turns off, whether you cut it off in a motorglider or it goes out on its own, your mind instantly switches to glider mode. He was smart enough to get the nose down, and consider himself a glider, and figure out where to glide to,” says Hustead. Unpowered landings are also a crucial part of glider training—after keeping the nose down for much of the approach, the pilot must pull off what amounts to a full-stall landing, reducing speed until the wings are no longer producing lift, and bringing the nose back up. The result is an extremely low-speed, low-impact landing. To Hustead, that matches descriptions of Sullenberger’s Hudson River landing. “That’s a glider’s instinct. It’s the most perfect landing on water I’ve ever heard of,” Hustead says.
If Sullenberger’s gliding experience turns out to have helped to save lives, it wouldn’t be the first time. In 1983, Air Canada Flight 143 ran out of fuel 41,000 ft over Ontario with 61 passengers onboard (the culprit was an embarrassing mix of human error and faulty fuel gauges). Capt. Robert Pearson, a certified glider, was able to safely land the Boeing 767 at a small airport in Manitoba. “I always say that glider pilots are the safest pilots. When the engine goes out, you’re ready for it,” says Hustead. “I would also hazard a guess that it’s a good reason for power pilots to get their certification. They can come down here—I’ll take them up any time.” —Erik Sofge
This Popular Mechanics article, after their "collapsing skyscrapers for dummies" article, provokes, for me, a "ditching aircraft for boys" story that I think, I've never, ever heard before.
The Professional Pilots Rumour Network - PPRUNE forum, has this thread:
You showed me a video which I watched.
I still see no crash.
Which jet engined plane has been brought down by birds?
Er well, on the video a bird hits the engine, the engine fails and the pilot makes an emergency landing. Hence the bird "brought down" the plane - whether it crashed in a massive fiery plume is neither here nor there.
The recent aircraft supposedly hit a flock of birds, not "two birds".
Look, I'm not that arsed so I'll not be getting into some big debate over it. I only commented because I was 100% sure birds have brought down planes before. If you do a few google searches, you can easily find this is long established issue and has 'brought down' a number of aircraft over the years. This one is particularly dramatic, but to extrapolate from that to wild baseless theorising seems to me rather pointless. Here's another one that crash landed
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5123600.ece
You seem to be trying to suggest that it is hopelessly implausible that the recent aircraft could have been forced to ditch after hitting a flock of birds and have suggested it may have been "shot down" (on the basis of zero evidence). It's strange non of the crew appear to have reported they were shot down, but rather
Quote:
Canada geese were the cause of the near-disaster that struck Flight 1459 seconds after it took off from New York's La Guardia to Charlotte, North Carolina, on Thursday afternoon, interviews conducted with the pilots and cabin crew this weekend have all but confirmed.
In dramatic evidence given to investigators, the pilot and co-pilot of the US Airways jet that ditched in the Hudson River both reported seeing a formation of Canada geese as their plane was reaching an altitude of about 3,000 feet. Before they knew it, the windscreen turned dark brown and several loud thuds were heard followed by complete silence as the engines went dead. There was also a smell of burning goose.
If you want to think rocket propelled geese or whatever were being fired at an airliner taking off from a commercial airport airport with no-one noticing for the flimsy reason some bankers happened to be on board, then that's fine with me.
I just think this is inventing something out of nothing for the sake of it. I mean,
Quote:
Is someone aiming to bump off bankers involved in delicate negotiations to prop up the US currency?
Well who exactly were the bankers on board and in what way were they connected with these here "delicate negotiations"? And what exactly would have happened if they'd died. As it is they were pretty late getting to wherever they were going, that's for sure. You'd think someone with the capacity to be shooting down aircraft over New York at will would just arrange for a bomb to be on board, blow it apart in mid air and blame terrorists mixing up deadly chemicals in the khazi.
I shall now just sit back and watch Mark reveal it occurred 11 months and 9 days after something or other happened somewhere. Maybe there never was a plane Mark - have you considered that?
'I could smell birds burning': Captain Cool tells of the Miracle on the Hudson... and gets invited to Obama's inauguration
By Paul Thompson
Last updated at 12:42 PM on 19th January 2009
Hero pilot Chesley Sullenberger has described for the first time the moment his passenger jet was crippled by a double bird strike over New York.
He told investigators how his cockpit windscreen suddenly filled with ‘big, dark brown birds,’ and how, moments later, he smelled ‘burning birds’ as both engines shut down.
Daily Mail _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:00 pm Post subject:
A misleading headline since flocks of birds most certainly do regularly bring down even the biggest aircraft, almost exclusively on take-off or approach. But looks likely there may have been engine trouble from the CNN article below.
Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger, III, joined US Airways in 1980.
First officer Jeffrey B. Skiles, joined US Airways in 1986.
Flight Attendant Sheila Dail, joined US Airways in 1980.
Flight Attendant Doreen Welsh, joined US Airways in 1970.
Flight Attendant Donna Dent, was hired by US Airways in 1982.
pprune wrote:
CNN is reporting passengers on an earlier flight 1549 (Jan 13) with the same incident plane contacting them about an engine event on climb out from La Guardia ... A couple of very loud bangs, announcement that emergency landing may be necessary, but flight then continued after pilots resolved the issue to satisfaction.
Passengers report scare on earlier US Airways Flight 1549 - CNN.com
(CNN) -- Two days before US Airways Flight 1549 crashed into the Hudson River, passengers on the same route and same aircraft say they heard a series of loud bangs and the flight crew told them they could have to make an emergency landing, CNN has learned.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/01/19/hudson.plane.folo/
What do people think? Potentially relevant?
John Hodock, another passenger on the Tuesday flight, said in an e-mail to CNN: "About 20 minutes after take-off, the plane had a series of compressor stalls on the right engine. There were several very loud bangs and fire coming out of the engine. The pilot at first told us that we were going to make an emergency landing, but after about five minutes, continued the flight to Charlotte."
"EAC confirms that US Airways ship number N106US flew on January 13, 2009, and January 15, 2009, with the same flight number of AWE 1549 from New York's LaGuardia Airport to Charlotte Douglas [International] Airport in North Carolina," Expert Aviation said in a statement to CNN.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/358238-plane-down-hudson-river-nyc. html
You seem to be trying to suggest that it is hopelessly implausible that the recent aircraft could have been forced to ditch after hitting a flock of birds and have suggested it may have been "shot down" (on the basis of zero evidence). It's strange non of the crew appear to have reported they were shot down, but rather
Quote:
Canada geese were the cause of the near-disaster that struck Flight 1459 seconds after it took off from New York's La Guardia to Charlotte, North Carolina, on Thursday afternoon, interviews conducted with the pilots and cabin crew this weekend have all but confirmed.
In dramatic evidence given to investigators, the pilot and co-pilot of the US Airways jet that ditched in the Hudson River both reported seeing a formation of Canada geese as their plane was reaching an altitude of about 3,000 feet. Before they knew it, the windscreen turned dark brown and several loud thuds were heard followed by complete silence as the engines went dead. There was also a smell of burning goose.
If you want to think rocket propelled geese or whatever were being fired at an airliner taking off from a commercial airport airport with no-one noticing for the flimsy reason some bankers happened to be on board, then that's fine with me.
I just think this is inventing something out of nothing for the sake of it. I mean,
Quote:
Is someone aiming to bump off bankers involved in delicate negotiations to prop up the US currency?
Well who exactly were the bankers on board and in what way were they connected with these here "delicate negotiations"? And what exactly would have happened if they'd died. As it is they were pretty late getting to wherever they were going, that's for sure. You'd think someone with the capacity to be shooting down aircraft over New York at will would just arrange for a bomb to be on board, blow it apart in mid air and blame terrorists mixing up deadly chemicals in the khazi.
I shall now just sit back and watch Mark reveal it occurred 11 months and 9 days after something or other happened somewhere. Maybe there never was a plane Mark - have you considered that?
So now presumably it isn't birds... but faulty mechanics.
What does the black box say?
You then go on to state I believe someone has the capacity to shoot down planes in mid air or place bombs on planes. The US airforce has that capacity and so has the anti-terrorist department of Homeland Security to override institutions and go ahead with whatever they want to do. They have been doing it for years the world over...
There's still this weird thing. Bird prevalence. All over the place. Vast hoards circulating at times of migration. The metal in the wing engines versus the fragility of the bird flesh and bone structure
Somebody must have thought about this stuff and how to combat it
It must have arisen in thousands of takeoffs and flights and landings
Suddenly it becomes a cause of engine failure
Throw me another one _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Last edited by paul wright on Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:37 am; edited 1 time in total
You seem to be trying to suggest that it is hopelessly implausible that the recent aircraft could have been forced to ditch after hitting a flock of birds and have suggested it may have been "shot down" (on the basis of zero evidence). It's strange non of the crew appear to have reported they were shot down, but rather
Quote:
Canada geese were the cause of the near-disaster that struck Flight 1459 seconds after it took off from New York's La Guardia to Charlotte, North Carolina, on Thursday afternoon, interviews conducted with the pilots and cabin crew this weekend have all but confirmed.
In dramatic evidence given to investigators, the pilot and co-pilot of the US Airways jet that ditched in the Hudson River both reported seeing a formation of Canada geese as their plane was reaching an altitude of about 3,000 feet. Before they knew it, the windscreen turned dark brown and several loud thuds were heard followed by complete silence as the engines went dead. There was also a smell of burning goose.
If you want to think rocket propelled geese or whatever were being fired at an airliner taking off from a commercial airport airport with no-one noticing for the flimsy reason some bankers happened to be on board, then that's fine with me.
I just think this is inventing something out of nothing for the sake of it. I mean,
Quote:
Is someone aiming to bump off bankers involved in delicate negotiations to prop up the US currency?
Well who exactly were the bankers on board and in what way were they connected with these here "delicate negotiations"? And what exactly would have happened if they'd died. As it is they were pretty late getting to wherever they were going, that's for sure. You'd think someone with the capacity to be shooting down aircraft over New York at will would just arrange for a bomb to be on board, blow it apart in mid air and blame terrorists mixing up deadly chemicals in the khazi.
I shall now just sit back and watch Mark reveal it occurred 11 months and 9 days after something or other happened somewhere. Maybe there never was a plane Mark - have you considered that?
So now presumably it isn't birds... but faulty mechanics.
What does the black box say?
You then go on to state I believe someone has the capacity to shoot down planes in mid air or place bombs on planes. The US airforce has that capacity and so has the anti-terrorist department of Homeland Security to override institutions and go ahead with whatever they want to do. They have been doing it for years the world over...
Well hang on a sec, according to what you've linked to
Quote:
The investigators have now confirmed that a collision with a flock of birds caused the plane to lose power and ditch in the river on 15 January.
So how does that constitute a change in story?
How serious is a stalled compressor? I can't say I know. Maybe it meant one engine was more likely to fail. Maybe it means nothing. The pilot at the time apparently continued the flight after it happened.
The US airforce has the capacity to carpet bomb New York (though how they could "place bombs" in aircraft engines that simply cause engine failure I don't know) - but how and why are they going to shoot down a commercial airliner above New York with not a single person noticing simply on the basis there are some "employees" of banks on board? I'm sorry, it just makes no sense to me. It hasn't even been explained who these "employees" were - they could have been cashiers going on a team building adventure weekend for all I know.
Look, sure we all know dirty deeds are done dirt cheap by various agencies from time to time. But it is also the case planes crash, trains derail and ships sink because accidents really do happen. I'm just saying I don't see a coherent motive, nothing to link these employees with any financial negotiations, nothing to indicate the American economy imploded because these dudes unexpectedly found themselves messing about on the river and not getting where they were going for a good while, no evidence of any actual foul play and nothing to convince me birds can't cause airliner engines to fail from time to time because they quite clearly do.
I'm a tad stuck on how a pilot can smell toasted geese . . .
Any ideas ?
Dunno. You have google, check it out. Have a look at the proportion of recirculated vs fresh air you'd expect and if the pilot gets a higher proportion of fresh air than the passengers. Then have a look at how the aircraft takes in fresh air and if it's plausible such an odour could be detectable by the pilot. Why, as they say, can you not do your own research?
Can anyone tell me exactly why this plane would be a target and exactly what evidence of nefarious activity there is?
As Gruts highlights on that thread, the website itself states in its disclaimer
Quote:
Some events depicted in certain articles on this website are fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.
It tells you it's fiction.
2/Mark seems unhappy with the pilot smelling burning goose, yet a passenger allegedly stated "the smell of gas was strong". If you can't smell goose, how come you can smell gas?
3/I don't think there's anything inconsistent with hearing an "explosion" and a bird strike - on the video I posted earlier on the thread, the engine can clearly be seen belching flame and there appears to be some kind of noise followed by a kind of chugging from the engine.
4/It just mentions totally unspecified "Russian military intelligence reports" Why are we to take unevidenced assertions about what Russian military intelligence are saying made by an American retired computer programmer at face value?
5/I don't know anything about air defence systems, but why in God's name do the Americans need "stolen" Russian kit?
6/It boldly states "top officials" of BOA were aboard while linking to a newspaper article as its source which simply describes them as "employees" giving no indication of their status or who they actually are whatsoever. This is basically making stuff up. It goes on to state they were involved in a $138 bailout by linking to a page simply describing this bailout with no evidence whatsoever provided this deal had anything to do with anyone on that plane. Again, making stuff up.
7/Where is the evidence of missile damage to the aircraft? How can missiles be being fired at aircraft above New York with no-one whatsoever - including pilot and crew - noticing? Where were they fired from?
8/The article goes on about these "top officials" foolishly flying alongside the plebs, apparently blissfully unaware the Service Employees International Union are pissed off that
Quote:
Taxpayers have given Bank of America $25 billion in bailout funds to help jumpstart our economy, but instead the bank has misspent on executive salaries and corporate jets. Then Bank of America took even more money from cash-strapped states by not paying for workers’ healthcare.
the US Congress had previously pressured all of their Nations top industrial and banking officials to stop using their private airline fleets while at the same time accepting from the American taxpayers billions of dollars in bailout funds.
but they haven't though have they?
I've spent a lot more time on this thread than I meat to, but I'm just concerned that it seems like there's a push towards thinking this is a conspiracy simply because it happened. I just don't get why an event has to be a conspiracy just because it was a bit dramatic.
I shall now just sit back and watch Mark reveal it occurred 11 months and 9 days after something or other happened somewhere.
Well, now that you mention it . . .
The alleged bird strike on the A320 that glided safely into the Hudson on 15.1.9 followed the most recent Air New Zealand owned A320 and operated by XL Airways Germany, crash, into the French Mediterranean on 27.11.8 by 1 month and 19 days.
Dogsmilk wrote:
Why, as they say, can you not do your own research?
_________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
I shall now just sit back and watch Mark reveal it occurred 11 months and 9 days after something or other happened somewhere.
Well, now that you mention it . . .
The alleged bird strike on the A320 that glided safely into the Hudson on 15.1.9 followed the most recent Air New Zealand owned A320 and operated by XL Airways Germany, crash, into the French Mediterranean on 27.11.8 by 1 month and 19 days.
Dogsmilk wrote:
Why, as they say, can you not do your own research?
Cool! All you need to do now is discover an employee of a bank was on board.
It's a shame the Mexican Interior Ministry plane crash - which did, after all, kill the Interior Minister - on 4th November doesn't quite work - 2 months and 11 days - so close! Damn, it's 10 weeks and two days too - if it had happened a week later you could have had 9+1+1! I'll keep at it - I am terrible with numbers so this numerical variant of the Kevin Bacon game is probably good for my brain.
Quote:
Dogsmilk wrote:
Why, as they say, can you not do your own research?
Er yeah - just quoting back what I said doesn't quite suffice as an answer to the issue in question.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:29 pm Post subject:
Dogsmilk wrote:
I am terrible with numbers so this numerical variant of the Kevin Bacon game is probably good for my brain.
Going by the prevalent example, I'd think that outcome highly unlikely.
Still, it's as well to remind ourselves in this fiendish plot packed world that most things remain a matter of perspective.
HUDSON CRASH LANDING STILL BETTER THAN HEATHROW
"Passengers on the plane which crash landed on the Hudson river last night insisted the terrifying experience was much better than Heathrow.
So much nicer than terminal four. As the stricken US Airways jet drifted over the skyscrapers of Manhattan before ditching in the freezing water, dozens of frightened passengers thanked God they were not arriving in London.
Tom Logan, a New York businessman, said: "As someone who has flown into Heathrow twice in my life, today's experience was like having a long, soapy shower with Heidi Klum.
"I hear they're planning a third runway at Heathrow. They should build a large moat instead. It would improve the experience immeasurably."
Kathy Cook, a sales assistant from New Jersey, said: "I looked out the window and saw the water getting closer and closer. I thought of my children, my husband, all the things I've never done and then I thought, 'Oh well, at least it's not Heathrow'."
She added: "Minutes later we were all squeezed onto the wing in the freezing cold waiting to be rescued and it occurred to me that this was actually much less crowded than Heathrow and with better facilities."
Aviation experts said the pilot, Chesley Sullenberger, was a hero for guiding the plane to a safe landing and saving the 155 passengers from a Heathrow-like nightmare.
Sullenberger said: "I kept saying to myself 'come on Ches, make it better than Heathrow. Just make it better than Heathrow'."
A US Airways spokesman said the passengers should receive their luggage within 48 hours, adding: "It's not as if the plane has been anywhere near Heathrow. It's just partially submerged in the Hudson river."
I know. I'll try harder, but like I said I'm no good with numbers. When it comes to going to 119 months or whatever I'll get very lost. Don't get cocky though - I bet I could beat you at Risk.
Anyway, chek has made a post now - isn't this your cue to start going on about some thread about the Pentagon for some bizarre reason?
I think the point about a severe banking collapse is real, though
It will happen this year for sure one way or another
The deflationary effect will turn eventually into hyperinflation and the majority of the population will have to turn to bushtucker as defined by the main media
This may be not real, is anything?, but for the next 4 years we are going to have to learn how to survive _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
I know I'm only buying food now if that helps clear things up _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
A feather was discovered this morning in the wreckage of one of the engines.
The size of the feather is not reported.
Is not reported
Is not reported......
They get around these pillows dont they?
I thought it was going to be Mohammed Attas intact passport...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
