Spyhunter wrote:

The DNA test ruled out his claimed connection to Stanley Ann Dunham. In any event she wasn't pregnant in July 1961 - a bit strange, since she's supposed to have had a baby in August! The intel has been used time and again since 2009, including by Pooters, who got a copy of the DNA results from Edward Snowden, who had penetrated the NSA for the Chinese.

That is, if there was a DNA test in the first place

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

This thread is like passing a horrible wreck on the highway. You know you should look away and keep driving, but you just can't help but slow down and look.

You might learn something Moose!

Oh, I've learned a lot already...

Good, you're going to learn some more!

Returning to the Tenerife Air Disaster (I have been spending some time predicting and analysing Donald Trump's expected victory) this is the critical passage from Captain Bartelski's superb text "Disasters In The Air: Mysterious Air Disasters Explained" (Airlife, 2001), at p. 261: "The roar of the engines, delivering some 40,000 pounds of thrust each, would have reached the Tower from the take-off position of runway 30 situated 1,800 metres away in six seconds. The thundering sound should have penetrated the glass panels of the Tower Control Room, despite their noise deadening properties".

I respectfully agree. There is more: First Officer Meurs TOLD THE TOWER KL4805 WAS TAKING OFF. Furthermore the Tower was situated close to the C4 taxiway, the very taxiway Captain Grubb was trying to enter as KL4805 hit him. There is no way the Tower could have missed the fireball, despite the low cloud. We know that a flight waiting to depart on the parallel taxiway saw it, and they weren't that much closer.

Yet more: the murdered Captain Veldhuijzen van Zanten's passengers were mostly Dutch nationals with a larger than usual % of young children. We know that the DVD and the Abwehr before them have a history of murdering children for shock value. We also know that several Dutch airliners have been targeted over the years by German Intelligence, including the KLM DC-3 carrying the actor Leslie Howard. Add to that to the high % of Jewish passengers on board Clipper Victor, flying to Gran Canaria to board the cruise ship MS Golden Odyssey, and you have three known German target groups in the same incident.

I am refraining deliberately from calling it an "accident" because it clearly wasn't. Unlike the investigators responsible for the spurious official reports I have considered all the angles, ie I have not ruled out deliberate causation and looked at all the facts, not just just those which fit a preconceived theory of pilot error.

I have rejected accidental jamming of the Approach Control frequency (119.7 MHz) at 1659 hours. Only critical transmissions needed to be blocked by the Luftwaffe/DVD ground team co-ordinating the crash, indeed it was essential that the ambiguous "cleared to Papa beacon .. climb and maintain Fight Level Niner Zero ... " ATC clearance be heard by Captain Veldhuijzen van Zanten on the KLM 747-206B. Of course simultaneous transmission can simulate frequency jamming. However Clipper Victor's CVR tapes were analysed by the NTSB on high-quality equipment. THERE IS NO CVR RECORD OF A TRANSMISSION FROM THE PAN AM 747 OR ANY OTHER AIRCRAFT AT THE CRITICAL TIME WHICH COULD ACCOUNT FOR THE JAMMING AND NO CVR OR ATC RECORD OF A TRANSMISSION SUBSEQUENT TO THE JAMMING REFERRING TO IT, AS WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTED HAD A TRANSMISSION BEEN BLOCKED.

I have put these points in capitals because they reflect an important point which seems to have been missed by every commentator on Tenerife in the last 41 years, probably because they have been working from preconceived theories, not the facts. Because frequency jamming CAN have an innocent explanation they have automatically assumed that it DOES, We don't make those sort of assumptions in air intelligence work. We look back at the evidence. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SIMULTANEOUS TRANSMISSION THEORY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SIMULTANEOUS TRANSMISSION.

Nor is there any evidence of radio malfunction. The explanation which best suits the facts is that a critical transmission, as Rijn was commencing her take-off run, was jammed, in order to ensure that the take-off roll was continued. Captain Bartelski didn't know about the DVD, so understandably he wasn't thinking in terms of deliberate causation. He was a pilot, and a damned good one, a KLM command DC-10 pilot at the time of the disaster, not an intelligence specialist. I am, and I am bringing my specialist knowledge and expertise to the party.

This forum should first and forenost be about aviation safety and saving lives. Pilots in command, in the interests of the safety of air navigation, need to be aware of the possibility of collisions being organised and must be willing to disregard ATC instructions which in their judgment hazard their aircraft. Captain Grubb had doubts about the dangerous instruction to proceed past the runway hold point of Runway 18 in conditions where visibility was marginal and approaching the Runway Visual Limit. He followed his training and not his instinct, and sadly lost his plane and most of the passengers entrusted to his care. I don't want another captain losing his plane and passengers to a dangerous ATC instruction in this way, without having a go at poor Captain Grubb, a man for whom I have enormous sympathy.

Two further points on Tenerife: Antonio Cubillo, the leader of the terrorist organisation responsible for planting the IED at El Gando, was based in Algiers. Algeria in 1977 was a German client-state. The Algerian breakaway from France was sponsored by the DVD as part of the German strategy of reversing the defeat of Vichy in 1944 - the Fifth Republic is essentially Vichyist. De Gaulle cut a deal with the Germans in 1944 whereby they abandoned their plan to destroy Paris and he agreed to work with them. He was gay and they had been applying pressure on him for some time. One of his early lovers was a Bavarian priest, apparently. (As a small historical aside, I usually own classic British V-8s. One of them, a 1968 Rover 3.5 Litre P5B, WMM342G, was previously owned by Churchill's intelligence adviser, Major-General Sir Edward Spears and after he died, by Lady Spears. She translated De Gaulle's appeal to France in 1940 for the BBC).

Cubillo could not have operated from Algiers without DVD backing. Interestingly the Spanish government sanctioned Cubillo the following year, although he survived, albeit with serious injuries. It is unusual for a democratic government to order the murder of its opponents in this way. The decision suggests that the Spanish Ministry of the Interior, which ordered the hit, had more on Cubillo than has been released into the public domain.

Secondly, Captain Bartelski had not only regularly flown through Los Rodeos, a KLM refuelling point on its West African routes, he had visited the control tower, i.e. was in a position to make informed comment about the take-off being heard by those in the tower.

Spyhunter wrote:

Stanley Ann Dunham. In any event she wasn't pregnant in July 1961 - a bit strange, since she's supposed to have had a baby in August!

And when exactly was this first discovered? Back in 1961 or just when 'birther' came to light? What was the evidence?

Spyhunter wrote:

Returning to the Tenerife Air Disaster (I have been spending some time predicting and analysing Donald Trump's expected victory) this is the critical passage from Captain Bartelski's superb text "Disasters In The Air: Mysterious Air Disasters Explained" (Airlife, 2001), at p. 261: "The roar of the engines, delivering some 40,000 pounds of thrust each, would have reached the Tower from the take-off position of runway 30 situated 1,800 metres away in six seconds. The thundering sound should have penetrated the glass panels of the Tower Control Room, despite their noise deadening properties".

As I said Bartelski, like yourself, was not aware of the extensive acoustic soundproofing work done to the control tower the night before van Zanten murdered hundreds of people.

Spyhunter wrote:

Secondly, Captain Bartelski had not only regularly flown through Los Rodeos, a KLM refuelling point on its West African routes, he had visited the control tower, i.e. was in a position to make informed comment about the take-off being heard by those in the tower.

When was his last visit to that tower? Were the controllers doing their job at the time he visited or were they watching soccer on the TV with the volume turned up?

Captain Bartelski does not date his two visits to the tower - they were not shortly before the disaster, but do not seem to have been that far back, i.e. he was probably flying a DC-10, not a DC-6B! We have discussed this point - the issue is not just the soundproofing of the walls and roof, but the glass. It's the glass which lets the sound in, albeit attenuated. A true anechoic chamber will not have windows.

What's more sound travels well through fog, as it does through water. The direction of the sound is another matter, but since only one runway was in use we needn't bother with what other sources of wide-bodies at TOGA power there might have been at Los Rodeos that day. As Biggles observed in "Biggles and the Rescue Flight" you've got to keep quiet in fog if the 'Hun' is in the vicinity! Light doesn't travel as well, which is why ships use foghorns not foglights, and foglights on cars use low-intensity beams. However the fireball produced by two 747s fully loaded with fuel colliding could not have been mistaken at that distance.

Spyhunter wrote:

Captain Bartelski does not date his two visits to the tower - they were not shortly before the disaster, but do not seem to have been that far back, i.e. he was probably flying a DC-10, not a DC-6B! We have discussed this point - the issue is not just the soundproofing of the walls and roof, but the glass. It's the glass which lets the sound in, albeit attenuated. A true anechoic chamber will not have windows.

What's more sound travels well through fog, as it does through water. The direction of the sound is another matter, but since only one runway was in use we needn't bother with what other sources of wide-bodies at TOGA power there might have been at Los Rodeos that day. As Biggles observed in "Biggles and the Rescue Flight" you've got to keep quiet in fog if the 'Hun' is in the vicinity! Light doesn't travel as well, which is why ships use foghorns not foglights, and foglights on cars use low-intensity beams. However the fireball produced by two 747s fully loaded with fuel colliding could not have been mistaken at that distance.

A few points:

1) You did not answer my question on 'birther' in your last reply.

2) You forgot the previous point I made about the glass: "The glass was changed from single glazed 0.17 thick glass panels to triple glazed 0.48 thick glass panels. The only thing those in the tower would have heard is the football on their blaring radios."

3) My observation is that Bartelski, like you, was just trying to get some publicity from his claims. Having said that, Bartelski's claims are far more reasonable that some of your claims, especially your claims about AF447 being shot down and MH370 being shot down by an Iranian Kilo over the SCS among other fantasy claims you have made without providing any evidence.

4) There is no way that the folk in the control tower would have heard, seen or felt the crash and its immediate aftermath (fireball, explosions, sounds, etc.) and not done anything. They did not know. They were busy listening to soccer anyway. Who knows where they were really looking at the time also.

Oh yeah, Spyhunter... What involvement did the DVD have in the latest crash in Columbia???

Sorry, not buying, 777! Even at .48 inch (?) the panels would not have excluded all sound, not least since sound actually travels quite well through glass. The purpose of soundproofing a building with windows is to REDUCE sound, not ELIMINATE it. I thereby stand by Captain Bartelski's conclusions.

He was far from being a publicity-seeker, indeed I suspect he was almost as shy as I am.

No DVD involvement in the Colombian tragedy, just poor airmanship, with respect, and shoddy ATC work. The crew's only chance of saving their plane was to disregard the reckless ATC instruction to keep circling - reckless since ATC knew the plane was on the verge of fuel starvation - and take the runway,without clearance, broadcasting their intentions on both the ATC and guard frequencies, warning other traffic that they had an emergency and were gliding in tanks dry, with no possibility of a go-around. In such a situation even a downwind or crosswind landing was preferable to 'landing' on a mountain.

Of course the crew should have diverted much earlier, but they should never have been kept in the air by ATC controllers heedless of the likely loss of life from denial of landing clearance to an airliner without fuel.

Not long gone back from watching Scully, which was released to theatres in the UK today. It's a wonderful movie. The NTSB get slammed and rightly so. I am well aware that certain liberties were taken by the great Clint Eastwood, the director, in the dramatisation, but not unfairly so. The NTSB are predisposed to see pilot error and their computer simulations on the Hudson ditching were a disgrace.

I'll be reviewing Sully on VeteransToday on Sunday, and calling on President-elect Trump to clear an award of the Queen's Commendation for Valuable Service in the Air for Captain Sullenberger and his First Officer. Their airmanship was outstanding.

I would not rule this out. Wait until we know if the fuel was contaminated. This is a known technique the DVD likes to use, see British Airways 777 at LHR.

seahawk wrote:

I would not rule this out. Wait until we know if the fuel was contaminated. This is a known technique the DVD likes to use, see British Airways 777 at LHR.

Stop picking on our resident conspiracy theorist.

Spyhunter wrote:

I suspect he was almost as shy as I am.

You are shy? Really? I never would have guessed!

Spyhunter wrote:

No DVD involvement in the Colombian tragedy, just poor airmanship, with respect, and shoddy ATC work.

I'll quote you now in case your version changes later

Feel free 777! My opinion usually only changes when the facts change, or a new argument comes along.

The BA 777 (Flight 38) was sabotaged by the Chinese, not the DVD, although the latter may have provided the software. Self-deleting lines of software code were inserted whilst the plane was on the ground in Peking. The plan was to take out housing on the approach to Heathrow,cause lots of casualties and force the PM, Brown, to abandon his scheduled visit to Peking. There were some side meetings which Peking were unhappy about.

The fuel didn't freeze, nor did the fuel low-temperature warning light come on. The AAIB ordered tests, which showed that the fuel had not frozen. Their report was influenced by the Cabinet Office, in order to appease Peking.

BA turned against the pilot-in-command, and I intervened with them on his behalf, alerting BALPA in the process to the lack of fuel-freezing.

One of the clues was that the Chinese stood down the band for the welcoming ceremony BEFORE the 'accident'. We like Peking to know about plane crashes after they happen, not before. The Taiwanese are good people, and were very helpful on that one, yet another reason for the UK to recognise Taiwan.

Spyhunter wrote:

BA turned against the pilot-in-command, and I intervened with them on his behalf, alerting BALPA in the process to the lack of fuel-freezing.

Most superheroes hide behind a mask. But not our brave Spyhunter.

777Jet wrote:

Spyhunter wrote:

777 Jet - you're missing the glass point! The glass wasn't changed.

The glass was changed. It was changed because I said it was changed. I don't need to provide any sources to back that claim. It is fact because I said it is fact. The glass was changed from single glazed 0.17 thick glass panels to triple glazed 0.48 thick glass panels. The only thing those in the tower would have heard is the football on their blaring radios. You still have not gotten my point.

Sadly he never will.

LMP737 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Is this your handy work? http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/10/02 ... t-on-mh17/

Well, were to start then? I was much amused by the comment, "with respect", since you show exactly no respect what so ever, not for the process, not for the people involved, not for the hard evidence, not for the victimsfamily, none.


This is one of the worst pieces of propaganda I have ever read. What a piece of crab. Almost every sentence is false of biased or a frame.

Veteranstoday, an anti-Semitic rag trying to pass itself off as a respectable veterans publication. Why some people here, KiwiRob I'm looking in your direction, use it as a source of information I'll never know.

In my defence I've never heard of Veteranstoday until you just mentioned it. BTW I'm not anti-smeitic, I disagree with the founding of the State of Israel, it was a bad decision that in hindsight nobody would ever agree to do the same again today, the amount of misery the founding of that country caused just isn’t worth it. But as your IQ isn't larger than your shoe size comprehending the difference between a disliking country and a religion is too difficult for you.

Spyhunter have you anything to add about the Rainbow Warrior sinking in Auckland all those years ago, was it really the French or was is someone else pulling the strings?

Kiwirob wrote:

In my defence I've never heard of Veteranstoday until you just mentioned it. BTW I'm not anti-smeitic, I disagree with the founding of the State of Israel, it was a bad decision that in hindsight nobody would ever agree to do the same again today, the amount of misery the founding of that country caused just isn’t worth it. But as your IQ isn't larger than your shoe size comprehending the difference between a disliking country and a religion is too difficult for you.

You were saying?

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1310401&p=18429733&hilit=veteranstoday#p18429733

Spyhunter wrote:

Feel free 777! My opinion usually only changes when the facts change, or a new argument comes along.

The BA 777 (Flight 38) was sabotaged by the Chinese, not the DVD, although the latter may have provided the software. Self-deleting lines of software code were inserted whilst the plane was on the ground in Peking. The plan was to take out housing on the approach to Heathrow,cause lots of casualties and force the PM, Brown, to abandon his scheduled visit to Peking. There were some side meetings which Peking were unhappy about.

The fuel didn't freeze, nor did the fuel low-temperature warning light come on. The AAIB ordered tests, which showed that the fuel had not frozen. Their report was influenced by the Cabinet Office, in order to appease Peking.

BA turned against the pilot-in-command, and I intervened with them on his behalf, alerting BALPA in the process to the lack of fuel-freezing.

One of the clues was that the Chinese stood down the band for the welcoming ceremony BEFORE the 'accident'. We like Peking to know about plane crashes after they happen, not before. The Taiwanese are good people, and were very helpful on that one, yet another reason for the UK to recognise Taiwan.

But considering the closer ties between Bolivia and China, the LAMIA jet would be the perfect target for testing a new malware code or untraceable contamination of the fuel.

Spyhunter wrote:

The BA 777 (Flight 38) was sabotaged by the Chinese, not the DVD, although the latter may have provided the software. Self-deleting lines of software code were inserted whilst the plane was on the ground in Peking. The plan was to take out housing on the approach to Heathrow,cause lots of casualties and force the PM, Brown, to abandon his scheduled visit to Peking. There were some side meetings which Peking were unhappy about.

The fuel didn't freeze, nor did the fuel low-temperature warning light come on. The AAIB ordered tests, which showed that the fuel had not frozen. Their report was influenced by the Cabinet Office, in order to appease Peking.

BA turned against the pilot-in-command, and I intervened with them on his behalf, alerting BALPA in the process to the lack of fuel-freezing.

One of the clues was that the Chinese stood down the band for the welcoming ceremony BEFORE the 'accident'. We like Peking to know about plane crashes after they happen, not before. The Taiwanese are good people, and were very helpful on that one, yet another reason for the UK to recognise Taiwan.

I like this version of BA38. Thank you for sharing it.

Regarding Taiwan, I hope the US under Trump formally recognizes Taiwan as its own independent, sovereign nation.

Now, on to a crash I believe I have not yet asked you about; Eastern 101. What really happened there? Was it poor piloting resulting from the 5 cent light bulb or was it something more interesting???

LMP737 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

In my defence I've never heard of Veteranstoday until you just mentioned it. BTW I'm not anti-smeitic, I disagree with the founding of the State of Israel, it was a bad decision that in hindsight nobody would ever agree to do the same again today, the amount of misery the founding of that country caused just isn’t worth it. But as your IQ isn't larger than your shoe size comprehending the difference between a disliking country and a religion is too difficult for you.

You were saying?

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1310401&p=18429733&hilit=veteranstoday#p18429733

Golly gosh aren't you a cleaver bunny, I don't even recall the post, I've never looked at the webpage since hence the reason why I've never quoted from it again, I challenge you to find any posts I've made which reference any article from that site either before or since.

btw if you read what I said when I posted the article

I don't know anything about this webpage, it appears to be a US veterans publication, it's quite an interesting point of view, not what I expected, especially since I imagine it's a fairly right wing.

Note the images are graphic.

777Jet wrote:

[Regarding Taiwan, I hope the US under Trump formally recognizes Taiwan as its own independent, sovereign nation.

Why? They don't view themselves as independent but as the legitieme government of all China. One nation policy is adopted by both sides.

Kiwirob wrote:

Golly gosh aren't you a cleaver bunny, I don't even recall the post, I've never looked at the webpage since hence the reason why I've never quoted from it again, I challenge you to find any posts I've made which reference any article from that site either before or since.

btw if you read what I said when I posted the article

I don't know anything about this webpage, it appears to be a US veterans publication, it's quite an interesting point of view, not what I expected, especially since I imagine it's a fairly right wing.

Rather obvious that you did not fully vet your source. If you had you would have, at least I hope, never have used it. Or maybe you would have, I don't know. What you did do though is see something on the net you agreed with and posted a link to it. Never bothering to see what that site was really about. You should really pay better attention next time.

Dutchy wrote:

777Jet wrote:

[Regarding Taiwan, I hope the US under Trump formally recognizes Taiwan as its own independent, sovereign nation.

Why? They don't view themselves as independent but as the legitieme government of all China. One nation policy is adopted by both sides.

You are delusional if you believe the "One nation policy" is really Taiwan's ultimate objective despite still currently being adopted.

Have you ever wondered why the US sells military hardware to Taiwan despite Chinese objections???

777Jet wrote:

Have you ever wondered why the US sells military hardware to Taiwan despite Chinese objections???

Whatever.
the Chinese colonists on Taiwan will be taken back in the fold some time in the future. mark my words.

WIederling wrote:

777Jet wrote:

Have you ever wondered why the US sells military hardware to Taiwan despite Chinese objections???

Whatever.
the Chinese colonists on Taiwan will be taken back in the fold some time in the future. mark my words.

Ah yes, we have another one of those "The US can sell weapons to Taiwan but Trump can't take a phone call from Taiwan's president" folks in here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... _to_Taiwan

Here is an older article but it should be good for those defeated lefties given that the source is CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/16/polit ... rms-sales/

Maybe you also need to ask yourself why The US provides security to Taiwan despite the wonderful 'One China' policy?

777Jet wrote:

You are delusional if you believe the "One nation policy" is really Taiwan's ultimate objective despite still currently being adopted.
Have you ever wondered why the US sells military hardware to Taiwan despite Chinese objections???

Taiwan's regime has to claim to rule China, otherwise they would have no logical reason to exist, because the people who rule Taiwan are not native Taiwan people, they are escapees from Chiang Kai-shek's army after they were defeated by Mao's revolution. The native people of Taiwan have more than a little in common with native Americans.

So yes, the rulers of Taiwan do claim to rule China.
http://www.cfr.org/china/china-taiwan-relations/p9223
But as the above link shows, there is equilibrium, that is to say there are no compelling problems with the way things are playing out: as long as nobody comes along who is foolish enough to upset the apple-cart and create problems that don't need to exist.

And yes, it has been perceived to be in US interests to allow Taiwan to purchase enough arms to make an invasion of their island a very painful experience for China. That kinda helps maintain the status quo.
What is your problem with that?

salttee wrote:

And yes, it has been perceived to be in US interests to allow Taiwan to purchase enough arms to make an invasion of their island a very painful experience for China.

What is your problem with that?

With what you just mentioned? Nothing at all.

My problem is with those who take issue with the next POTUS *receiving* a congratulatory phone call from the president of a state (whatever you want to classify Taiwan as) that the US supplies military hardware to anyway.

And things keep getting better:

'The U.S. Will Let Taiwan’s President Transit in New York City in a Rebuff to China'

http://time.com/4593328/taiwan-china-pr ... i-ing-wen/

777Jet wrote:

With what you just mentioned? Nothing at all.

My problem is with those who take issue with the next POTUS *receiving* a congratulatory phone call from the president of a state (whatever you want to classify Taiwan as) that the US supplies military hardware to anyway.

And things keep getting better:

'The U.S. Will Let Taiwan’s President Transit in New York City in a Rebuff to China'

http://time.com/4593328/taiwan-china-pr ... i-ing-wen/

Trump's breaking of protocol falls into the category of upsetting the apple cart, as in needlessly upsetting the apple-cart. The brahoo about the NY visit is blowback from Trump's phone call blunder, now Trump has an opportunity to double down and further needlessly irritate the Chinese, and he may do just that.

At some point in the future, Trump or a US Sec of State will be negotiating with the Chinese about trade, North Korea or maybe those islands in the SCS. It is nonsensical to push the Chinese to the wall over something that is essentially meaningless before even starting on matters of substance. Yet that is what Trump is doing. The man is a fool.

Speaking of which, you say: "And things keep getting better:" as if this is some kind of entertainment show. Is that how you see world affairs?

salttee wrote:

777Jet wrote:

With what you just mentioned? Nothing at all.

My problem is with those who take issue with the next POTUS *receiving* a congratulatory phone call from the president of a state (whatever you want to classify Taiwan as) that the US supplies military hardware to anyway.

And things keep getting better:

'The U.S. Will Let Taiwan’s President Transit in New York City in a Rebuff to China'

http://time.com/4593328/taiwan-china-pr ... i-ing-wen/

Trump's breaking of protocol falls into the category of upsetting the apple cart, as in needlessly upsetting the apple-cart. The brahoo about the NY visit is blowback from Trump's phone call blunder, now Trump has an opportunity to double down and further needlessly irritate the Chinese, and he may do just that.

At some point in the future, Trump or a US Sec of State will be negotiating with the Chinese about trade, North Korea or maybe those islands in the SCS. It is nonsensical to push the Chinese to the wall over something that is essentially meaningless before even starting on matters of substance. Yet that is what Trump is doing. The man is a fool.

Speaking of which, you say: "And things keep getting better:" as if this is some kind of entertainment show. Is that how you see world affairs?

I hope Trump does indeed meet with the pro Taiwan independence president Tsai Ing-wen. *If* Taiwan ever decides to push for independence it would only have a shot of success under a US administration that would be supportive, and that seems like the Trump administration.

The phone call was no blunder; it was well planned in advance. I wouldn't be surprised if a meeting hasn't already been planned.

If such a meeting would push the Chinese to the wall "over something that is essentially meaningless" as you claim, then that is on the Chinese.

Perhaps the Chinese will one day realize that they cannot dictate to the US over who the US can and can't hold a conversation with, meet with, or allow to transit their country.

It's about time somebody stood up to these ridiculous fools in China. China is attempting to punch far above its current weight.

Don't be surprised in three years of so if the US shifts some (not all, some) military assets from Japan, South Korea and the Philippines (notice Duterte's change of tone after Trump's victory) into Taiwan in preparation...

777Jet wrote:

I hope Trump does indeed meet with the pro Taiwan independence president Tsai Ing-wen.
*If* Taiwan ever decides to push for independence it would only have a shot of success under a US administration that would be supportive, and that seems like the Trump administration.

Taiwan already has "independence". It is independent because it agrees that it is part of China. If it want's to challenge that, it will lose its independence. China is not at all punching above its weight.

Again, there is no reason to create a problem where one does not currently exist.

777Jet wrote:

The phone call was no blunder; it was well planned in advance. I wouldn't be surprised if a meeting hasn't already been planned.

The phone call was a blunder, if there is such a meeting that will also be a blunder. If the US wants to go to war with China a better cause would be to eject them from the Spratley islands and Ladd Reef where the US would at least have a temporary tactical advantage. A trade war with China over Taiwan would be akin to shooting oneself in the foot, (both feet).

777Jet wrote:

If such a meeting would push the Chinese to the wall "over something that is essentially meaningless" as you claim, then that is on the Chinese.

Wow! So China would get a demerit from 777jet. I'm sure that would be a major deterrence.

salttee wrote:

777Jet wrote:

I hope Trump does indeed meet with the pro Taiwan independence president Tsai Ing-wen.
*If* Taiwan ever decides to push for independence it would only have a shot of success under a US administration that would be supportive, and that seems like the Trump administration.

Taiwan already has "independence". It is independent because it agrees that it is part of China. If it want's to challenge that, it will lose its independence. China is not at all punching above its weight.

From the last source I provided, on independence:

""The consensus states that both sides belong to “one China” even if they disagree on which is the legitimate government. Tsai, however, has refused to acknowledge the consensus, describing it as “an option, but not the only one.”""

and on China punching above its weight:

""The consequences of a face-to-face encounter would be “extremely serious,” says Professor Chu Shulong, an international relations expert at Beijing’s Tsinghua University. “The relationship between China and the U.S. would hit rock bottom.”

“America is a strong country but can’t do whatever it wants,” he adds. “China has a say in the U.N., and regarding many international issues, such as North Korea, Iran, climate change, etc., which could also constrain the U.S.”""

-China is clearly punching above its weight with that kind of rhetoric.

salttee wrote:

A trade war with China over Taiwan would be akin to shooting oneself in the foot, (both feet).

It would be more damaging to China than the US.

salttee wrote:

777Jet wrote:

If such a meeting would push the Chinese to the wall "over something that is essentially meaningless" as you claim, then that is on the Chinese.

Wow! So China would get a demerit from 777jet. I'm sure that would be a major deterrence.

I'm sure Trump getting a demerit from salttee would also be a major deterrence to him going about business with Taiwan

777Jet wrote:

I'm sure Trump getting a demerit from salttee would also be a major deterrence to him going about business with Taiwan

This is an example of why it is pointless to engage in discussion with you.

My disdain for Trump's lack of ethics and intellect is not a parallel for your seeming belief that China is held to some moral standard, or that anyone's moral judgement of China carries any weight - with anyone. Nations act in their interests: period. People act (or fail to act) in accordance with the mores of their society.

So instead of understanding that nations hold no obligation to anybody's sense of morality, you try to turn that back as an insult to me by pretending that your lack of understanding of the behavior of nation states is the same as my judgement of a very public human: Donald Trump.

777Jet wrote:

Maybe you also need to ask yourself why The US provides security to Taiwan despite the wonderful 'One China' policy?

Posturing towards China and power projection.
No real interest for any "ally".

Taiwan will be dropped if it fits the agenda or money runs out.

salttee wrote:

So instead of understanding that nations hold no obligation to anybody's sense of morality, ..

That is by observation the working mode of the US. Winning knows no limits.

For to go there they invariably try to leverage pretended altruism on their side
and attributions of satanism on the opponent side. no self respect.

777 Jet and I agree on something! US recognition of Taiwan! UK should recognise Taiwan too. We haven't forgotten the outrageous attack on HMS Amethyst.

I think I have the point on the control tower glass 777 - you were employing sarcasm. Sadly this is the lowest form of wit, with respect! In this case it's still not clear whether you were making the thickness up to make a point, or not! I am quite prepared to accept that the glass may have been changed as part of the control tower's refurbishment - what I don't accept is that the tower would then be totally sound-proofed. I have cited in support of my arguments a line DC-10 pilot and distinguished former President of the IFALPA, who actually visited the tower, twice. I'm entitled to do so, and to form my own opinion, with which you are entitled to disagree.

In fact what you are objecting to is not my inability to cite facts, because we are often working from the same set of facts, but the inferences I draw from those facts. Reaching conclusions is often a matter of drawing inferences. It's a bit like working out what's wrong with a plane - sometimes you have to work it out for yourself, from inadequate information. In intelligence analysis you are trying to get at a truth others are often anxious to conceal.

I do indeed write for VT, but the debate above appears to relate to a posted comment by somebody else. They do attract some anti-semitic trolls, but that is true of most alternative websites. They have good law enforcement, military and intelligence links, as may be sen by the resumes of the contributors. I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel and always have been. It is an open secret that I have worked with their excellent Mossad, indeed Gordon Thomas's history of the Mossad refers to some of my material featuring on the syllabus of Mossad's training school. Being out in the open allows me to defend the agencies I have worked with, and attack their enemies, non-kinetically, in a way they cannot. I can also get stuff out there that for political reasons they cannot. Since I'm a white hat, and only work with white hat agencies like Mossad, at the end of the day I can defend what I have done.

I function out in the open, partly for professional reasons, partly for sound intelligence reasons (I have acted as a conduit for intelligence, e.g.) and partly because the modern level of communications monitoring is such that working behind the scenes simply wouldn't be possible. Since I get attacked, usually maliciously, I have fought against my natural instinct to hide my lights under a bushel (!) and can occasionally be drawn into saying something about some of my intelligence successes, invariably in collaboration with others. In the case of BA Flight 38 I worked with a computer scientist/IT specialist named Neil Jones, who knew a great deal more about self-deleting lines of software code than I did. We cracked Flight 38.

It's a simple statement of fact re Captain Burkill. He was treated shabbily by BA, was in no way responsible for the constructive loss of his aircraft, and through his outstanding airmanship saved many lives, in the air and on the ground. I did intervene, I'm glad I did so, and we had a bit of a result. Had Neil and I been listened to (in practice the task of distributing our conclusions, which was not without its hazards, rested with me) we would not have had the Schiphol Air Disaster. Everybody in officialdom, however, was nervous of upsetting China. That was a disgrace.

Turning to the Eastern TriStar tragedy, my analysis is that a member of the crew (not the captain) was suborned. There was a DVD campaign against both the plane, and Rolls-Royce, who made the engines. The TriStar's automatic pilot had a safety feature, designed to permit rapid takeover by the pilots, which worked against it, as there was no aural or visual warning of autopilot disengagement. The Germans were desperate to bankrupt both Lockheed and Rolls. As part of the strategy Lockheed's design for the plane was leaked, via the CIA, to McDonnell Douglas, who were thereby able to accelerate the design of the DC-10, wholly unaware that it in turn was the subject of a long-term sabotage campaign.

Only the 747 was immune, I suspect because the DVD's Sabotage Section were hoping for an uncontained in-flight failure of a JT9D. When that didn't happen, as we have seen, they arranged a collision between two of them, coupled with a media whispering campaign about the supposed dangers of having so many passengers in one hull. In fact the safety record of the 74 has been good, far better than that of the narrow-bodied jets it replaced, with the graceful exception of the dear old VC-10, which had useful reserves of power, clean wings and was very safe.

The unfortunate BAe 146 crash in Colombia was clearly nothing to do with fuel contamination - there was simply no fuel! It was a tragic combination of bad fuel management (no kidding!) and shoddy ATC work, resulting in an unsuccessful landing on a mountain. With respect to the late pilots and air traffic controllers involved, I think that the runway in use would have been a better choice.

Spyhunter wrote:

777 Jet and I agree on something! US recognition of Taiwan! UK should recognise Taiwan too.

If full independence is what Taiwan really wants, I hope the Trump Administration helps them achieve it.

As for salttee... my last reply to that one was deleted which has been a common trend for some time now. You know what they say about the truth...

Spyhunter wrote:

In the case of BA Flight 38 I worked with a computer scientist/IT specialist named Neil Jones, who knew a great deal more about self-deleting lines of software code than I did. We cracked Flight 38.

It's a simple statement of fact re Captain Burkill. He was treated shabbily by BA, was in no way responsible for the constructive loss of his aircraft, and through his outstanding airmanship saved many lives, in the air and on the ground.

Agreed about Burkill.

I'd be glad to have him Captain any 777 flight I'm on.

Spyhunter wrote:

Turning to the Eastern TriStar tragedy, my analysis is that a member of the crew (not the captain) was suborned. There was a DVD campaign against both the plane, and Rolls-Royce, who made the engines. The TriStar's automatic pilot had a safety feature, designed to permit rapid takeover by the pilots, which worked against it, as there was no aural or visual warning of autopilot disengagement. The Germans were desperate to bankrupt both Lockheed and Rolls. As part of the strategy Lockheed's design for the plane was leaked, via the CIA, to McDonnell Douglas, who were thereby able to accelerate the design of the DC-10, wholly unaware that it in turn was the subject of a long-term sabotage campaign.

I'd like to know how your version played out if you believe a member of the crew was actually suborned?

It's been several years since I worked on this one, but it's all to do with the crew member who was in a position, from memory in the avionics bay, who could have confirmed to the captain that the gear was down and locked. It wasn't what he reported, it's what he didn't report, when his own life was at stake. The whole thing smelt to high heaven.

Spyhunter wrote:

It's been several years since I worked on this one, but it's all to do with the crew member who was in a position, from memory in the avionics bay, who could have confirmed to the captain that the gear was down and locked. It wasn't what he reported, it's what he didn't report, when his own life was at stake. The whole thing smelt to high heaven.

IIRC it was Second Officer Don Repo who first went down into the avionics bay to visually look through the small porthole to see if the gear was down. However, there was a company 'tech' guy, Angelo Donadeo, who was jump-seating in the cockpit as a non-rev pax. Donadeo was also down in the avionics bay with Repo at the moment of impact. Out of everybody in the cockpit, only Donadeo survived and recovered. Second Officer Repo survived the crash but died later in hospital. Captain Bob Loft survived the impact but died in the wreckage. First Officer Bert Stockstill was killed in the initial impact.

Donadeo was the only survivor from the cockpit and since he was not part of the crew as he was non-reving... what do you suggest based on your previous post?

My uncle was checked-in for this flight but missed the connection because his inbound flight from Europe was delayed.

Lucky uncle! It was Repo, from memory Donadeo was a late addition to the flight. Repo's death is suspicious - my conclusion is that he was probably taken out in the hospital to prevent him talking. The critical thing is that the gear could have been confirmed as locked and down from the avionics bay, and from memory it was only the nose gear that hadn't got a green.

Mike, you know anything about the MH653 disaster from 1977?

Official word was that a member of the Japanese Red Army got a hold of the flight, but there are also sources saying that the DVD took action in retaliation for something the Malaysian government did against them back then. Got any clue?

This thread is way more entertaining than all the political B.S. going on in the rest of non-av.

It's like watching a train wreck! I just can't look away...

Spyhunter wrote:

It was Repo, from memory Donadeo was a late addition to the flight. Repo's death is suspicious - my conclusion is that he was probably taken out in the hospital to prevent him talking. The critical thing is that the gear could have been confirmed as locked and down from the avionics bay, and from memory it was only the nose gear that hadn't got a green.

Interesting.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Mike, you know anything about the MH653 disaster from 1977?

Official word was that a member of the Japanese Red Army got a hold of the flight, but there are also sources saying that the DVD took action in retaliation for something the Malaysian government did against them back then. Got any clue?

I bet Mike will confirm the DVD's involvement

Actually no! I haven't looked in detail at MH653. Each crash turns on its own facts!

Thank you Calder! Your kind words may have been spoken in jest, but many a true word ...

Merry Christmas everyone.

Happy New Year everyone! Sad news about Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds. Does anyone know why the flight didn't divert, or did Carrie's cardiac problems have a sudden onset?

Spyhunter wrote:

Happy New Year everyone! Sad news about Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds. Does anyone know why the flight didn't divert, or did Carrie's cardiac problems have a sudden onset?

My analysis is, with respect, that a DVD agent was on the flight deck and ignored the recommendation of a medical divert. They needed a way of stopping her getting the plans for Merkel's Death Star to her contact us LA.

My last post seems to have been deleted! Definitely no DVD agent on the flight deck.

Query however when the first signs of cardiac distress were noted.

What is the DVD, they don't even have a Wikipedia page or a website, so how does one find information about them?