Germanwings flight 4U9525 crash in Southern France

[Tesseract]

Reports of one of the pilots being locked out of the cockpit:

"The guy outside is knocking lightly on the door and there is no answer and then he hits the door stronger and no answer. There is never an answer," the investigator, who is identified only as a senior military official, was quoted as saying.

"You can hear he is trying to smash the door down.

"We don't know yet the reason why one of the guys went out.

"But what is sure is that at the very end of the flight, the other pilot is alone and does not open the door."

Couldn't make it up. Or, maybe someone did. I suppose we'll find out soon.



source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-2...report/6349546

[Hervé]

Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot is a set of sub-routines aimed at defeating attempts at aircraft hijacking by removing electrical power from an aircraft's flight deck, and irrevocably passing pilot authority to the autopilot and navigational computer for an automated landing at a safe airfield that can deal effectively with the incident.

History
In 2005, avionics supplier, Honeywell, was reported to be talking to both Boeing and Airbus about fitting a device aimed at preventing a 9/11-style hijack. On 16 April 2003, Honeywell filed patent US7475851 B2, Method and apparatus for preventing an unauthorized flight of an aircraft. Airbus and BAE Systems, had been working on the project with Honeywell. Development sped up after the September 11, 2001 attacks.[1][2]

----------------------------------------------

A mechanical reason wouldn't prevent seasoned pilot from flying on the green light from their mechanics.

Hacking of their targeted air travel company fly-by-wire controls by unknown entities would...

[Flash]

Posted by Truglivartna (here)
the jim stone thing isn't much, it just says,
it looked like a controlled dive.

It has now been determined that the descent was a perfectly controlled full throttle dive of a perfectly working aircraft straight into the side of a mountain. And I know how it happened, details below.

I think you missed the point Jimstone was making. It was an UNCONTROLLED DIVE brought on via "Uninterruptible Autopilot"....sabotage, in other words, perhaps helped along by the two French fighters that were seen within seconds after the aircraft's explosion. It's called "Uninterruptible" because that's exactly what it is. It was originally designed to be totally uninterruptible by an aircraft hijacker so that the aircraft was left being entirely remotely controlled.

The way I read it was a Controlled dive, but not by the pilot, it was a hijacked controlled dive, to make sure everything is completely smashed up and that no bodies can be identified by sight.

I am looking for something else I have seen on the forum, and cannot find it. It was saying that there is a Nato exercise presently in the same area, the only war plane that indicated a plane was down was an italian one, nobody else put the distress signal out and that it might have been the usage of a liquid laser technique that was used and the target missed but the plane hit, because that kind of laser is difficult to control. However, this would not go with a controlled dive.

[Sophocles]

From The New york Times:

PARIS — As officials struggled Wednesday to explain why a jet with 150 people on board crashed in relatively clear skies, an investigator said evidence from a cockpit voice recorder indicated one pilot left the cockpit before the plane’s descent and was unable to get back in.

A senior military official involved in the investigation described “very smooth, very cool” conversation between the pilots during the early part of the flight from Barcelona to Düsseldorf. Then the audio indicated that one of the pilots left the cockpit and could not re-enter.

“The guy outside is knocking lightly on the door and there is no answer,” the investigator said. “And then he hits the door stronger and no answer. There is never an answer.”

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/wo...=top-news&_r=0

[Carmody]

Kinda reminds me of the time that BOTH engines failed on Merkel's Helicopter, just after she got off it.

Which is a statistical impossibility, due to how they are designed, on that particular craft.

Kinda like a warning.

This smells like it might be more of the same. A definite possibility.

[araucaria]

the jim stone thing isn't much, it just says,
it looked like a controlled dive.

It has now been determined that the descent was a perfectly controlled full throttle dive of a perfectly working aircraft straight into the side of a mountain. And I know how it happened, details below.

I think you missed the point Jimstone was making. It was an UNCONTROLLED DIVE brought on via "Uninterruptible Autopilot"....sabotage, in other words, perhaps helped along by the two French fighters that were seen within seconds after the aircraft's explosion. It's called "Uninterruptible" because that's exactly what it is. It was originally designed to be totally uninterruptible by an aircraft hijacker so that the aircraft was left being entirely remotely controlled.

The remote controlled dive would be something that the BBC graphic I posted above might be seeking to rule out. It also means that where the pilots were is immaterial, making the lockout scenario a mere diversion.

Question for you, Truglivartna. Jimstone says the crash happened at upwards of 600 mph, which strikes me as impossibly high – unless he means 600 km/h (373 mph) (unlikely?). The Flightradar24 data shows the plane slowing to 384 knots at 09:40:36, which is 442 mph. As I showed in an earlier post, the deceleration was decelerating and the data cuts off at a point where an acceleration may have been initiated. If the data is correct and an acceleration that we are not supposed to know about indeed occurred, the question then is, what would the final velocity be, and would it be enough to reduce the plane to (quote) ‘confetti’?

On another point: if the French government is involved, to understand what this entails, we need to factor in the likely possibility that the Charlie Hebdo massacre was made in reprisal against that government, very briefly for listening to Putin. The fighters may or may not have been helping the plane down. They may well have been there if not to prevent their civilian plane going down at least to monitor what was going on. The way to find out is to thread past the opera singers, schoolkids and other innocent victims and find the actual target(s) on the passenger list.

[seehas]

Ive seen pictures of wreckage parts on german newssites and that wasnt confetti eitner like 3 windows on one piece is quite big isnt it

[araucaria]

Posted by seehas (here)
Ive seen pictures of wreckage parts on german newssites and that wasnt confetti eitner like 3 windows on one piece is quite big isnt it

That seems to be the one exception that proves the rule - I saw that piece too but I haven't seen any others. The fact remains that one rescuer was quoted as saying he found no people, just bits of people, no larger than a briefcase I believe was the phrase used. The point is that this isno normal crash scene, where you would usually find at least the tail section or a wing broken off and more or less intact.

[Roberta]

I'm not so sure that we'll find out soon... There seems to be a blackout on this crash. The truth is out there but they are not giving it to the public.

[Flash]

Maybe we should look into military exercises in the neighbourhood and new war equipment that might have been used, than the human/country target.

[Sophocles]

On a press conference it was just stated by the head of the french investigators that the co-pilot deliberately took down the plane.

Germanwings co-pilot appears to have deliberately downed plane, prosecutor says.

Link: http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.649032

Whatever happened, I think this will make it even more scarier to fly in the future.

[SKIBADABOMSKI]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Yup the pilot apparently locked the other pilot out and took the plane down.

If I'm not mistaken.. the pilots have a way of getting into the cock pit when locked out. This information is withheld from the public for obvious reasons.
But here we go...

[Flash]

For a group of German pilots not wanting to fly the day after the accident, this means that they know that the pilot they know was not suicidal and did not take the plane down. It means they suspect something else entirely. They should be interviewed.

[thepainterdoug]

I'm reading of the possibility that the collider at CERN may have had something to do with this. The flight crashed during the week they were starting it up again . perhaps the incredible energy this machine puts out could have caused a disturbance in the electrical?? i don't know, just passing along the thought.

[araucaria]

Posted by SKIBADABOMSKI (here)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Yup the pilot apparently locked the other pilot out and took the plane down.

If I'm not mistaken.. the pilots have a way of getting into the cock pit when locked out. This information is withheld from the public for obvious reasons.
But here we go...

Here is a video explaining how the purser can get into the cockpit in an emergency. If she can do it, surely the pilot/copilot could have done so as well, if only by asking her although I'm not sure this would work with a suicidal pilot on the inside.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ixEHV7c3VXs

[Truglivartna]

Posted by araucaria (here)

the jim stone thing isn't much, it just says,
it looked like a controlled dive.

It has now been determined that the descent was a perfectly controlled full throttle dive of a perfectly working aircraft straight into the side of a mountain. And I know how it happened, details below.

I think you missed the point Jimstone was making. It was an UNCONTROLLED DIVE brought on via "Uninterruptible Autopilot"....sabotage, in other words, perhaps helped along by the two French fighters that were seen within seconds after the aircraft's explosion. It's called "Uninterruptible" because that's exactly what it is. It was originally designed to be totally uninterruptible by an aircraft hijacker so that the aircraft was left being entirely remotely controlled.

The remote controlled dive would be something that the BBC graphic I posted above might be seeking to rule out. It also means that where the pilots were is immaterial, making the lockout scenario a mere diversion.

Question for you, Truglivartna. Jimstone says the crash happened at upwards of 600 mph, which strikes me as impossibly high – unless he means 600 km/h (373 mph) (unlikely?). The Flightradar24 data shows the plane slowing to 384 knots at 09:40:36, which is 442 mph. As I showed in an earlier post, the deceleration was decelerating and the data cuts off at a point where an acceleration may have been initiated. If the data is correct and an acceleration that we are not supposed to know about indeed occurred, the question then is, what would the final velocity be, and would it be enough to reduce the plane to (quote) ‘confetti’?

On another point: if the French government is involved, to understand what this entails, we need to factor in the likely possibility that the Charlie Hebdo massacre was made in reprisal against that government, very briefly for listening to Putin. The fighters may or may not have been helping the plane down. They may well have been there if not to prevent their civilian plane going down at least to monitor what was going on. The way to find out is to thread past the opera singers, schoolkids and other innocent victims and find the actual target(s) on the passenger list.

I'm not sure Jimstone is correct about the 600mph crash speed -- or that it matters that much. Even 300mph straight into the solid rock sidewall of a mountain, plus the resulting explosion of fuel tanks, would shred the flimsy (relatively speaking) structure of an aircraft's construction. We don't really know if the jet fighters were French or not at this point, so we don't know who else might be involved in the takeover and "suiciding" of the plane. It's pretty safe to assume that the same party or parties involved were probably the same as involved in the Malaysian flight destructions since both Boeing and AirBus aircraft of those models were known to have been fitted out with the Uninterruptible Autopilot features....the same as the aircraft and situation supposedly involved in the 9/11 affair.

Most commercial airline pilots would by now be familiar with the ability to hack into this Uninterruptible Autopilot feature, and the complete helplessness of the pilots operating the aircraft once it was activated. If I was a pilot for that particular German airline, you can be sure I wouldn't climb into any of that company's Airbus 320 aircraft without some very convincing proof that the "U.A." had been removed or completely disconnected. No small wonder none of them wanted to fly following the "accident"!

[araucaria]

Posted by thepainterdoug (here)
I'm reading of the possibility that the collider at CERN may have had something to do with this. The flight crashed during the week they were starting it up again . perhaps the incredible energy this machine puts out could have caused a disturbance in the electrical?? i don't know, just passing along the thought.

Doug, see here:

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by Rocky_Shorz (here)
CERN short circits at same time as plane crash! Additional PROOF CERN was the cause of this tragedy. link

This site is all doom-and-gloom religious propaganda.
Below is a screenshot of early morning traffic (c. 7.30 local time) showing just how many planes are much closer to Cern, notably around Geneva, Lyon and Grenoble. Why would none of these planes be hit but one 200 miles away? It makes no sense.

Attachment 29322

Added:
The public prosecutor in Marseille has stated today that the copilot deliberately pressed buttons to put the plane in descent mode with destructive intent.
http://www.liberation.fr/societe/201...nnette_1227268

So the official story is going to be suicide, and it will probably be correct, but no necessarily watertight. Any lie would be one of omission: see what suicide motives are put forward, I doubt if mind control will be one of them. But you can remote control a pilot just as easily as you can remote control an Airbus.

We are asked to transpose the idea of a mother committing suicide while killing her children to an airline pilot taking 150 people with him. The former has happened so why not the latter? Well maybe that too happens, but don’t try convincing me that a normal, healthy society produces normal, healthy people acting in this way. Whether such events are steered by individuals or remotely controlled by certain groups is ultimately neither here nor there. If the former is the case, that would merely mean that we have reached the stage where our civilization as a whole is in “a perfectly controlled full throttle dive” and about to hit the schist, that hardest of rocks.

[panopticon]

German transport minister just announced that it seems plausible that co-pilot deliberately crashed plane (Marseilles prosecutor seems to agree).
Co-pilot Andreas Lubitz, 28, had sole control of the flight at the time and it appears he refused to re-open the door of the cockpit for the pilot and then deliberately crashed the flight.

-- Pan

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-2...r-says/6351854

[awakeningmom]

MSM is now reporting that the plane was intentionally brought down by the 28 year old co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, a German national, who supposedly locked the captain out of the cockpit. Hmm...how long until this co-pilot is supposedly identified as being connected to ISIS or some "anti-western" group in the Ukraine? And how many stories will we see reminding people that pilots should never leave the cockpit b/c of 911, etc.... ? I smell a psy op.

[Hervé]

Let's see...

The emergency was declared by the guys monitoring the flight when they got no responses from the pilots... that would have gotten fighter jets to scramble from the closest air force base or any flying jets close by.

What fails to make sense is this (see post # 42): why wasn't that fail-safe procedure engaged for a definitely hijacked airplane, be it heart attack or suicidal impulse?

That plane wasn't remotely controlled to counter a hijack... therefore, that counter-hijack system is totally useless, or... totally effective in crashing targeted planes!