Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > Current events > What is really going on?
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-28-2009, 10:55 PM
xopatriot xopatriot is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3
Default Re: Flight 1549 in the Hudson


Any word on who was aboard the plane? Anyone of importance? I ask because I heard a rumor that some bankers of banks orchestrating the massive bank merger were aboard can anyone verify or post link?

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-08-2009, 09:33 PM
tpomerian01 tpomerian01 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5
Default Re: Flight 1549 in the Hudson

I've been reading another forum where a person questioned the official response. He was not treated well. You will not be either. I will not be either.
One post said all passengers thought geese hit the plane. Untrue. Most said the engine exploded. Strangely the pilot said nothing about a explosion.

The same article said both engines were in the Hudson. Untrue.

I live 150 miles north on NYC. We don't see many geese in the middle of January although there are lots of them in the summer.

There is no question that the captain & crew are heros but someone should question how many geese are around at this time of year. Is there any possibility it was a missile? it would have been a good time for one.

Most likely we will never know.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-11-2009, 07:14 PM
tpomerian01 tpomerian01 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5
Default Re: Flight 1549 in the Hudson

here is one.
Witnesses hear a blast - but watch US Airways Flight 1549 glide in for a perfect landing

There are many questions. The captain heard geese hitting the plane as mentioned in his 60 minutes interview but the passengers heard a loud explosion.

Why was the captain not allowed to talk to the press for 24 hours after the crash?

How do you know it was geese? How many geese have you seen in NYC in January? I would appreciate if you could prove it was geese.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-11-2009, 07:22 PM
tpomerian01 tpomerian01 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5
Default Re: Flight 1549 in the Hudson

It was just before Bush was to address the nation with his "no additional terrorist attacks" theme.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-12-2009, 08:17 PM
tpomerian01 tpomerian01 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5
Default Re: Flight 1549 in the Hudson

Look there are serious questions about the crash. If you choose to ignore them that is your business.

There is a bigger problem here anyway. Your bullying does not allow other people to have opinions. This is not an open forum where people can voice opinions. It is a forum where people can voice opinions only if they agree with you.

Have you ever heard the quote "though i disagree with everything you say i will defend to the death your right to say them" I don't see any of that attitude here.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-21-2009, 09:48 PM
emerson24 emerson24 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11
Default Re: Flight 1549 in the Hudson

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
Why would it have been a good time for a missile?

I'm suprised with all the people around, didn't someone take a photo of the plane being hoisted out of the water? I'm sure it was a big to-do in the local community, and even the news. So it's like this plane crashes in the water, but then no one reports on it after? Seems odd.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-21-2009, 10:02 PM
emerson24 emerson24 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11
Default Re: Flight 1549 in the Hudson

Well, it makes sense that a cone tip/tubular craft would part the sea with much less force coming across it than the big engines, where the engines would be ripped off, but I wonder when this photo of the plane was taken? And did the water in fact tear the engines off? Plus, the wings are off on the picture, so this tells me that someone had already done some dismantaling of the plane.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-21-2009, 10:10 PM
emerson24 emerson24 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11
Default Re: Flight 1549 in the Hudson

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
I apologize for being abrupt, but not everything is a conspiracy.

Keep that in mind as you are lead around the web to various sites that exist for the sole purpose of instilling fear and propagating every act of GOD, nature and anything unexplainable as a conspiracy wrought by the controllers.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

It's a DUCK!
I'm beginning to think you're a jackass by reading your posts, and your quick responses to mine of which you add the same flavor as you do all others. First of all, this post was just questioning the cause of the accident, with a disclaimer that he's not saying it was a terrorist, caused by the gov, etc.

Then someone else mentioned the migration of birds in January being interesting/odd. Yeah, OJ wasn't convicted yet we all know he did it.

How about sticking to the topic of conversation and let it be just that, conversation and exploring different thoughts. I see no fear inducing themes going on J.A.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-21-2009, 11:01 PM
emerson24 emerson24 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11
Default Re: Flight 1549 in the Hudson

Ok, well...my apologies for calling you a jack ass, while I disagree with you, and you seemingly have an agenda, no need for the disparaging comments.

As for my stance, not enough info. However, the fact that birds don't typically migrate at that time of year is interesting, which is what the general consensus is. That some people heard an explosion is interesting. That the pilot didn't speak for 24 hours, or was told not to, or whatever it was, is interesting and causes people to ask more questions.

If someone drove by your house every night, and you saw the same car, you would investigate. Doesn't mean anything is wrong, but if you don't, then it's foolish on your part. That is all people are doing, as I see it.

Although, if it was a conspiracy, I haven't heard of a good outcome it would have had if it did crash. Not exactly sure how it would have impacted things. I mean, sure, if Bush wanted to pull Martial Law and stay in office, that could be a reason, although, I don't see how this incident could have caused something like that to occur, just not big enough in magnitude IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-22-2009, 03:44 AM
emerson24 emerson24 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11
Default Re: Flight 1549 in the Hudson

I have no agenda other than posting my opinions/comments. If you think that posting a comment suggests a member of this forum has an agenda, I suggest you understand that an opinion and an AGENDA are not one in the same.

As for my stance, not enough info. However, the fact that birds don't typically migrate at that time of year is interesting, which is what the general consensus is. That some people heard an explosion is interesting. That the pilot didn't speak for 24 hours, or was told not to, or whatever it was, is interesting and causes people to ask more questions.

If you don't have enough information to make a stance as to why you think this plane crash is a conspiracy, then why insinuate same?

I live in the Northeast and there are geese flying above my house all winter long. Do you think that, perhaps, if geese are ingested into an engine it might cause an explosion?


If someone drove by your house every night, and you saw the same car, you would investigate. Doesn't mean anything is wrong, but if you don't, then it's foolish on your part. That is all people are doing, as I see it.

The plane didn't fly over my house every night so there wasn't any need for me to investigate Flight 1549 and, even if Flight 1549 flew over my house every night, I wouldn't have had a clue.

Although, if it was a conspiracy, I haven't heard of a good outcome it would have had if it did crash. Not exactly sure how it would have impacted things. I mean, sure, if Bush wanted to pull Martial Law and stay in office, that could be a reason, although, I don't see how this incident could have caused something like that to occur, just not big enough in magnitude IMO.

Pull marital law over a plane crash? You're kidding, right?

First of all you insinuate it could possibly be a conspiracy because no one took pictures of the plane being taken out of the water then you insinuate that it could be a conspiracy because geese don't normally migrate at that time of the year. So, what is it? Do you think the plane crash was a conspiracy or not? If you think it was a conspiracy, please state your hypothesis. The plane crash is over. Move on.


My bad, you really are a jack ass. I never implied it was a conspiracy, and I stated that, clearly. You obviously can't read. I simply stated that I would think pictures would have been taken when the plane was removed which should clarify some questions.

As for the martial law being pulled, I stated that I'm not seeing how this plane flight would fit any conspiracy, SUCH AS Bush pulling Martial Law, as someone else suggested. You need to read dude.

The plane flying over was an analogy for something looking suspicious. Hence, the explosion, birds causing both engines to go out, etc.

Simply put, you are a jack ass who obviously doesn't read what someone writes and just wants to argue for the sake of arguing. My bad for thinking you were anything but. No need to reply.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.