Passenger plane stolen from SeaTac. What are the options?

[Ba-ba-Ra]

Although I must admit I'm one of those who suspects there's more to this story than we know, I also realize sometimes people just do things spur of the moment.

The video below is a perfect example: Couple steals a firetruck at the scene of a fire, and take it on a 75- mile an hour, 4-county, 2 hr chase.

In one video (don't know if it's this one) he said when caught: Well it was there, and I thought, why not. And yes, drugs were involved.

https://www.kcra.com/article/2-arres...truck/22149686

Back to Sea-Tac. The fact that he did loop de loops at such a low elevation without crashing and his name being the same as a submarine, does give me pause on this one. Also the fact that air control didn't go dark.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Amazing MM, you did a very brave (and wise) thing jumping out when you did!

Did you call the police on him? From the stunt he pulled and the lies he told I wouldn't be surprised if he'd done it all before. He damn well sounds like serial predator.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Ba-ba-Ra (here)
Back to Sea-Tac. The fact that he did loop de loops at such a low elevation without crashing and his name being the same as a submarine, does give me pause on this one. Also the fact that air control didn't go dark.

A barrel role is an advanced manoeuvre, especially at low elevation. That's 100s of hours in the seat, and in this particular plane. A novice pilot wouldn't even try it unsupervised.

A turboprop airliner of this calibre is a hundred miles from a Cessna. And a Cessna is about million miles away from a truck, a bus, or a train (to you or me). A non-pilot has as much chance of pulling this off as my grandmother scoring the winning touchdown at the superbowl (and she's been dead 33 years).

Even if he really did snap, went totally doo-lally tits up around the bend mental. He gets into the cockpit, and he's confronted with this:



The Bombardier Dash 8. He might as well be on the space shuttle. Forget advanced manoeuvres like barrel rolls or loop the loops, first he has to get it rolling out of the gate and onto the taxiway. When I look at these controls and imagine, 'ok, how I would I steal this plane?' I reckon I'd be dragged off by an armed unit long before I figured out just how to get the wipers working!

By evidence of his aerobatics, he has to be an experienced pilot. One does not simply climb into the flight seat of an airliner and press 'go.'

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Michelle Marie (here)
That's making the story short. So, my own personal experience of someone saying they worked with someone who didn't in order to deceive and manipulate, makes that a distinct possibility.

It's a theoretical possibility. Not a distinct one.

I'm in very little personal doubt that the story told by Todd Bunker was 100% real. As Star Mariner reported, this kind of demeaning working environment is hardly unique. People can do strange and unpredictable things when they're under great internal pressure, harming themselves and/or others. Sometimes, people really do break.

If we started an Avalon thread about people we'd once known personally who'd suddenly snapped like a twig and did something major, bizarre and inexplicable, it might be a very long thread.

I'd suggest that if members DID share those stories, we should believe them. We believe your story about the near-abduction in the car, yes? (And so should we, too. There's no reason to DISbelieve you. Witnesses are witnesses.)

I'd also be extremely confident that the e-mail that was sent to us was also real and sent in good faith. Read the energy!

And any moderator can write to the person to establish their own dialog, if they wish. If we want to do research, then we can talk to people. We maybe shouldn't be wildly guessing (and accusing) without reference to honestly offered witness testimony. Or else, we're just manufacturing our own fantasy, with no regard to feet-on-the-ground evidence.

If course, anyone can write anything. But so can people writing on this thread who are members, or people writing anonymously on any other blog who are then quoted faithfully as if we knew who they were.

As I always used to say when I worked with Project Camelot: there's a lot of weird stuff out there, and some of it true.

But not ALL of it. That was always my point, and I'd suggest we should maybe never forget that.

[norman]

It's a REALLY TUFF ONE !


It's just about impossible to believe he flew that plane.


It's just about impossible to believe a guy who worked there longer than a few short weeks ( on a crock exercise for white hats ) had that exact real name.


I've been waiting for someone to find out he only worked there 3 weeks or so. That doesn't seem to be the case.


I'm baffled on this one.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Star Mariner (here)

Posted by Ba-ba-Ra (here)
Back to Sea-Tac. The fact that he did loop de loops at such a low elevation without crashing and his name being the same as a submarine, does give me pause on this one. Also the fact that air control didn't go dark.

A barrel role is an advanced manoeuvre, especially at low elevation. That's 100s of hours in the seat, and in this particular plane. A novice pilot wouldn't even try it unsupervised.

A turboprop airliner of this calibre is a hundred miles from a Cessna. And a Cessna is about million miles away from a truck, a bus, or a train (to you or me). A non-pilot has as much chance of pulling this off as my grandmother scoring the winning touchdown at the superbowl (and she's been dead 33 years).

Even if he really did snap, went totally doo-lally tits up around the bend mental. He gets into the cockpit, and he's confronted with this:



The Bombardier Dash 8. He might as well be on the space shuttle. Forget advanced manoeuvres like barrel rolls or loop the loops, first he has to get it rolling out of the gate and onto the taxiway. When I look at these controls and imagine, 'ok, how I would I steal this plane?' I reckon I'd be dragged off by an armed unit long before I figured out just how to get the wipers working!

By evidence of his aerobatics, he has to be an experienced pilot. One does not simply climb into the flight seat of an airliner and press 'go.'

Yes, I completely get the point!

But: I did see one knowledgeable person in a recent TV news interview (forgive me: I can probably find and quote it if pushed), who emphasized that if anyone really wanted to learn online how to fly a Q400 (or anything else!), with reference to detailed flight manuals and also simulators, starting, taxiing and taking off, it might be FAR FAR easier than we might ever think.

He was so emphatic about this, he declined to give the details of where all this stuff was. He didn't want to encourage any copycatting.

It's NOT the same, but someone could steal a firetruck, too as in Ba-ba-Ra's post. I also knew someone who stole her father's car when she was a 12 year old girl, having only just watched him drive. She was so small, she could hardly see over the steering wheel. She went on a long joy ride, through traffic, and returned it with no damage. No barrel rolls! But, still.

[avid]

My friend is a really keen flier of all sorts of planes (including huge passenger jets) via his flight simulation ‘bedroom’, we have been privy to a lot of the progress of his ‘flights’ across the world. If he can do it, so can loads of people. I also remember him performing aerobatics via his simulator. We were worried at the time for his ‘safety’, but the implications are horrendous.

[KiwiElf]

Posted by Star Mariner (here)

Posted by Ba-ba-Ra (here)
Back to Sea-Tac. The fact that he did loop de loops at such a low elevation without crashing and his name being the same as a submarine, does give me pause on this one. Also the fact that air control didn't go dark.

A barrel role is an advanced manoeuvre, especially at low elevation. That's 100s of hours in the seat, and in this particular plane. A novice pilot wouldn't even try it unsupervised.

A turboprop airliner of this calibre is a hundred miles from a Cessna. And a Cessna is about million miles away from a truck, a bus, or a train (to you or me). A non-pilot has as much chance of pulling this off as my grandmother scoring the winning touchdown at the superbowl (and she's been dead 33 years).

Even if he really did snap, went totally doo-lally tits up around the bend mental. He gets into the cockpit, and he's confronted with this:



The Bombardier Dash 8. He might as well be on the space shuttle. Forget advanced manoeuvres like barrel rolls or loop the loops, first he has to get it rolling out of the gate and onto the taxiway. When I look at these controls and imagine, 'ok, how I would I steal this plane?' I reckon I'd be dragged off by an armed unit long before I figured out just how to get the wipers working!

By evidence of his aerobatics, he has to be an experienced pilot. One does not simply climb into the flight seat of an airliner and press 'go.'

I'd add it's a massive jump going from just a desktop PC Simulator, irrespective of how realistic it may be (eg FSXSE), to a real full motion cockpit simulator, too. (like the video Hip posted on page 1 of this thread, & below). That kid still had an instructor seated next to him, telling him what to do.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=DfdpuBg8uvI

This particular "simulated aircraft", (made by the sim firm, "Majestic"), is one of the most complex PC FSim aircraft models available.

http://www.simreviews.com/2016/02/08...0-pro-edition/

Yes, it's so good, the "Pilot" version of it is used for real training. Again, posted by Hip - this is the exact model - the start instructions are about half way though... (this reviewer is well known in the FSim community & has done several more on the Q400 following this first video). I cannot understate its complexity (far more so than the 737 jet in the video above). As noted in the video, the "flight engine" (ie the physics of "how it works" & emulates the real thing) on this one comes from NASA, not Microsoft.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=c_pyJHsGwMw

Airline Pilots training on an aircraft like this are already qualified, experienced, real Commercial pilots with a minimum of 250+ hours logged in real airplanes. (I seriously doubt even they would attempt maneuvers like this in a real Q400).

As Ron has pointed out, even a full motion simulator (the types that airlines use & unlikely he'd have access to that, either - someone would know if he did - they ain't "toys"), lacks "G-Force" or a completely "real" sense of speed & movement (let alone aerobatics like barrel rolls & loops).

I'm still not buying it.

[Michelle Marie]

No matter what the cover story is, the main thing that has been brought to the surface and into our awareness is that, allegedly, billionaires are on these islands and it has been reported they enslave underage children and use them for sex or ritual abuse. If they have missile capabilities and are operating outside the law to cause great harm and destruction, it is well worth the effort to research what is going on there.

I doubt any stealth operation is going to be revealed before it is complete. And, if by some stretch, a crazy worker took off on a plane and drew attention to the islands and the submarine by his name, well it may prove to be beneficial in the whole scheme of things.

It was amazing to hear the testimony on the dauntless dialogue channel that was posted on the neon revolt thread.

The truth will come out. The children will be protected.

MM

[Foxie Loxie]

This is about the children....as Praying Medic says!

What has been going on worldwide is simply incomprehensible to most of us! Good point, Michelle!

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
But: I did see one knowledgeable person in a recent TV news interview (forgive me: I can probably find and quote it if pushed), who emphasized that if anyone really wanted to learn online how to fly a Q400 (or anything else!), with reference to detailed flight manuals and also simulators, starting, taxiing and taking off, it might be FAR FAR easier than we might ever think.

Interesting Bill. I must admit, I didn't know a whole lot (ok, anything) about video game flight simulators. Not my thing, so I didn't take his statement of 'playing video games' as being at all realistic. But after reading up on these systems - wow, I never knew. They don't just simulate a true-to-life flying experience, they instruct too, and not on a gimbal at Boeing or NASA, but on a humble deskop PC! Turn, yaw, lift and drag, all the manoeuvring, all the avionics faithfully reproduced. I suppose if you added VR to this, it'd be even more realistic.

Taking this in, I can see how this might be possible without a pilot license, or any real-world experience at all.

They say he was employed there for 3½ years. Working around a real physical Bombardier on a regular basis, that's more than enough time to watch, study, photograph the inner and outer workings of this plane, and even ask questions of pilots to prepare a spectacular suicide. But that would mean it was pre-meditated, not a crazy impulse. Doing his homework, practicing on a home simulator, and having the will to do this, I do think it's at least possible.

This brings up a slightly worrying addendum. Do ultra-real simulators on home PCs pose a danger to airport security? If Richard Russell really flew this plane, so could someone else. And even if he didn't, what's to stop some cracked copycat gamer stealing a plane for real one day, to go out in a blaze of glory?

Food for thought, and I could actually persuade myself to lean more in favour of this theory - had Q not sent us sniffing in another direction. So, I don't completely rule out the white hat theory either, that Russell might have been an undercover spook on a deep op.

[KiwiElf]

Posted by Star Mariner (here)
This brings up a slightly worrying addendum. Do ultra-real simulators on home PCs pose a danger to airport security? If Richard Russell really flew this plane, so could someone else. And even if he didn't, what's to stop some cracked copycat gamer stealing a plane for real one day, to go out in a blaze of glory?

In the first place, we're assuming this guy meant "flight sim" when he said "video games". (First time I've heard of a flight sim referred to as a "video game" if that was in fact what he meant; most of us "Flight Simmers" would defend & use the term "Flight Sim" - they really are Simulators, in as much that they replicate most of the functions & flight characteristics of the real thing, not so much a game).

I'm not aware that other aircraft have been stolen in this way, ie by PC Sim Pilots (which is not to say it hasn't happened - it would be a rare occurrence, and with much smaller, less complex aircraft). Plenty of aircraft get stolen, especially in drug-running ops but they're stolen by real pilots.

Assuming that the "official narrative" is true, I think this "incident" would, at the moment, be the record for a stolen aircraft in terms of its size & complexity by a "non-pilot". More a case that aero clubs and airports may have to change their attitudes to security, (just as most of us these days wouldn't leave our homes with the doors unlocked or windows wide open - some still do).

Most people are trusting by nature. Airport "people" wouldn't generally think someone is going to steal an airplane (after this, that belief may change!). Like cars, some are trusting enough to leave them unlocked & with the "keys in the ignition" or hidden under the seat or sun visor (first place I'd look!).

I mentioned at the start of this thread; with the exception of most small, single-engine piston airplanes, they don't need keys to start, just a key to unlock the doors.

If it really started to become a problem, a simple "control lock" (a lockable brace which prevents the flight controls operating), or an alarm and "demobiliser" as fitted to cars would be possible solutions, (along with much tighter airport security)?

And again, that's just a few more reasons why I'm not buying the "official narrative" as it presently stands.

EDIT: Yes, Star Mariner, you can plug-in the 3-D VR Flight Goggles to go, for that added sense of realism!

[KiwiElf]

Flight Data Recorder found, Q400 destroyed beyond recognition.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=CntIElI5nK4

https://fox6now.com/2018/08/12/fligh...d-recognition/

And to address some of the security concerns raised above (excerpt):

Experts said the crash exposed alarming gaps in airport security, and is likely to prompt a major review of industry security measures.

“This is going to be a major learning event for the industry,” CNN aviation analyst Justin Green said. “This is a really big deal.”

Russell managed to steal the 76-seat Horizon Air turboprop from a maintenance area by himself. He was in uniform, had proper credentials and had clearance to be in secure aircraft areas, said Tilden, the airline CEO.

“They’re credential employees. They’re there to work on the airplanes. … This is aviation in America. The doors of the airplanes are not keyed like a car. There is not an ignition key like a car. The setup in aviation in America is we secure the airfield,” Tilden said.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rom-crash-site


Further reading: Stealing a Plane Is Not Easy, So How Did It Happen in Seattle?

https://www.wired.com/story/seattle-...investigation/

[norman]

No sign of a fire at the crash site ?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Michelle Marie (here)
No matter what the cover story is, the main thing that has been brought to the surface and into our awareness is that, allegedly, billionaires are on these islands and it has been reported they enslave underage children and use them for sex or ritual abuse. If they have missile capabilities and are operating outside the law to cause great harm and destruction, it is well worth the effort to research what is going on there.

Here's Ketron Island, with smoke rising from the crash site.



Here are two screenshots of an aerial view of the crash debris, presumably captured with a drone. You can see the splintered large trees. The source video is the one posted by KiwiElf here.





Meanwhile, here's the final radio broadcast before he crashed. (just 14 seconds)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=KqIt90KIYSQ

It's pretty low in volume, so I amplified it. Here it is as a short MP3.

• http://projectavalon.net/Richard_Rus..._broadcast.mp3

My comment, if I may, with no sarcasm attached or intended: I don't see any missile silos, or children, in any of the photos. It looks like a plane crash on a small forested island to me, and I'm 100% sure that's just what it was.

[KiwiElf]

Posted by norman (here)
No sign of a fire at the crash site ?

Another "mystery"... if the fuel readouts from the "non-pilot" are correct, the plane would have been low on fuel at the time of impact - but not critically so - (some might say, "running on fumes") - not at all ... he last reported 2,100 lbs remaining which may or may not be correct - that's approx 313 gallons of Jet A1 - Kerosene, slightly less than that when it crashed, which was only a few minutes later, (he said he started with 3,000 lbs = roughly 20-25% full). What remained, (if he was correct), would still be enough for a significant explosion. (We haven't yet seen any video of the actual impact or the few seconds leading up to it, which in itself is a bit odd considering all the other video footage... shades of the 9-11/Pentagon attack?).

Here's some info on the fuel flow (or burn) of the Q400:
https://www.flyradius.com/bombardier...rn-consumption

Its maximum fuel capacity is 1,724 U.S. gal /11,550 lbs/ 6,526 L.

ie this equates to burning approx 1,800 lbs (268 galls) - 2,700 lbs (402 galls) per hour. At such a low altitude, it would be higher, depending on how fast you go!

That aside, it's surprising that there wasn't a more "significant" fire (and a lot more wreckage than what we're seeing in the above video); there are components of the engines which would have been red hot. Turboprops are jet engines turning propellers; (the engines idle @ around 10,000 rpm - they would have been turning a lot faster than that at impact).

NOTE: The "Q" team are referring to a sub; near, submerged or harboured at the island, (which [allegedly] fired the missiles), not a ground installation or missile silo on the Island.

They are suggesting a pedo operation hidden on the island (underground) similar to Epstein Island. ie, the plane itself was used as a "missile" to take out the pedo base OR, a distraction for the fighter jets really being there to do the same (and/or the sub), OR at least a warning to those running it.

Who knows?

[KiwiElf]

What's wrong with this picture? (please see my updated post above) ...

Posted by norman (here)
No sign of a fire at the crash site ?

Here's video aftermath & wreckage of a six-seat, twin piston-engine Cessna 414 (a fraction of the size of a Dash 8), pilot lost control after running out of fuel, it stalled, & nosedived straight down into a Parking Lot in Santa Ana a couple of weeks ago.

It ran out of fuel. = no explosion.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=HS5UVsCHLd8

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=uOahfZCql60

Here's the crash & aftermath of an even smaller, piston, single-engine six-seater Cessna Pressurised Centurion which was low on fuel.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9D1WKnZaUoo

And here's the crash scene & ensuing fireball of a six-seat, Cessna Citation 525 private jet, deliberately crashed into a home with lots of fuel (at least as much fuel as the Dash 8 still should have had remaining in its tanks)...
It's a little bigger than the first aircraft - but ALL significantly smaller than a Dash 8.

(NO, I'm not giving Cessna a hard time - no fault of the aircraft in all three ... ).

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=DiqtiAJrMvI

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-inside.html

... The Ketron Island Crash scene... (from above)





Are we really "getting the BIG picture"?

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Michelle Marie (here)
That's making the story short. So, my own personal experience of someone saying they worked with someone who didn't in order to deceive and manipulate, makes that a distinct possibility.

It's a theoretical possibility. Not a distinct one.

I'm in very little personal doubt that the story told by Todd Bunker was 100% real. As Star Mariner reported, this kind of demeaning working environment is hardly unique. People can do strange and unpredictable things when they're under great internal pressure, harming themselves and/or others. Sometimes, people really do break.

Essentially all the detail in Todd Bunker's story rings true enough to me.

But I saw no detail, other than the claim that Todd "worked alongside" Rich Russell, though they were "barely acquaintances", that provided any evidence, or even suggested any claims, that it was an actual, long standing, co-worker of his that flew that Q400 up and around and into the ground.

For someone who is a good writer, with interesting details ... it seems odd that there are no details of Rich Russell in what he wrote. What Todd provides in well written detail is a plausible motive for someone in his job "going out with a bang" - that motive being: life sucks on the ramp.

I will confess that I feel no more the wiser than I was before as to what actually happened.

This continues to feel to me like one of those many headline stories in which what really happened is substantially and deliberately different than what we're told happened.

Of course, I am also pretty sure that I've seen reports, from previous such falsely reported events, that purported to be from people who knew the victims or knew the perpetrator(s), that were actually part of the deliberate coverup of the truth.

[KiwiElf]

Posted by Paul (here)

Essentially all the detail in Todd Bunker's story rings true enough to me.

But I saw no detail, other than the claim that Todd "worked alongside" Rich Russell, though they were "barely acquaintances", that provided any evidence, or even suggested any claims, that it was an actual, long standing, co-worker of his that flew that Q400 up and around and into the ground.

For someone who is a good writer, with interesting details ... it seems odd that there are no details of Rich Russell in what he wrote. What Todd provides in well written detail is a plausible motive for someone in his job "going out with a bang" - that motive being: life sucks on the ramp.

I will confess that I feel no more the wiser than I was before as to what actually happened.

This continues to feel to me like one of those many headline stories in which what really happened is substantially and deliberately different than what we're told happened.

Of course, I am also pretty sure that I've seen reports, from previous such falsely reported events, that purported to be from people who knew the victims or knew the perpetrator(s), that were actually part of the deliberate coverup of the truth.

Agreed Paul,

Todd writes SO well that maybe he should pursue it as a new career, given his current job seems to be a bit sucky, by all accounts!

Reminds me of the "professional witnesses" interviewed in every false flag operation, from JFK & 9-11 onwards... (and I still don't buy it!) . Too "convenient" when it so "eloquently" fits the "official narrative"... I STILL have a LOT of unanswered questions... even more than I had before ... (above)

[Ascension]

There doesn't appear to be footage of the actual crash. Close but no cigar is this video from Chambers Bay, where you see a low flying plane disappear behind the island, then, at the moment of impact you hear the photographer & companions reacting, and see a person in the foreground reacting, but no footage of the actual impact. It then cuts to a distant shot of the plume. Why did they stop filming at the moment of impact? It's not clear why they were filming in the first place, unless maybe the sound caught their attention, because the plane certainly isn't very visible in the footage. Or maybe it had been overhead and they were following it.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=fbv5HvPS6cU

Of all the places to go down in the Puget Sound area, this would be one of the most remote while still remaining in plain site. A tiny island with few inhabitants, and no immediate access. Even a water crash would've given the opportunity for more public scrutiny.

This video does excel at being completely useless since it seems to show that something may have crashed either with or without a pilot. Lol, gets right to the heart of the story.