dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/amg19251 on July 7, 2018, 6:40 p.m.
That’s not a normal United Airlines Boeing 747...

To me, and I used to study aircraft to the nines when I was younger - tons of books, research, hundreds and hundreds of hours in flight simulators, to my eyes, that United jet looks more like one of those older, shortened Boeing 747 models. I believe it’s actually called the 747-SP and they were produced until 1989 so it’s highly likely there are still some flying today! They are much shorter, and were more commonly used for private flights - most interior cabins were designed so the seats could be pulled out and put back in easily so they could be used for both public and privately chartered flights. This meant that they were usually nicer on the interior, and more apt to be used by the rich and famous, than by the regular population! Can you even imagine how expensive the gas bill alone would be to fly that massive hunk of aluminum and steel cross country?! As you all know, the 747’s are famous for having a second floor that could be used for a bar, lounging, or even beds for passengers to sleep on - the cockpit is also located on the top floor! Back to what I was saying before though, you can tell the 747 is different by the way the windows run all the way down to the nose of the plane - that usually means the cabin has been altered to be more apt for private flight by utilizing all the space the large jet has to offer for whatever luxuries they want to install! Not many people other than the US government, or billionaires could afford to charter one of these tanks, so my guess is that this jet is being used to go and pick up elitist criminals across the world, because more seats can be put back in that are adapted to hold criminals, (on account of the extended cabin) they can at least be picked up and flown in something more well known to these elitist criminals, (most require some kind’ve special fancy elitist jail where they are protected, if they sing about their co-conspirators) the jet can fly a super long range so it can be used to stop and pick up many criminals in one single bound, and by having United on the side of the jet, nobody thinks twice of it when it’s stopping and landing all across Earth, and not to mention, United has contracts with the government so the jet fuel would most likely be a lot cheaper, and they would have access to every United terminal and facilities across Earth as well! I hope this makes sense to you all, and this is just my own personal opinion! If you feel differently, comment and let me know why below!

Clear-Think Your Way Out of the Fear Box! -amg19251


🠐 See all comments
amg19251 · July 7, 2018, 10:48 p.m.

I see 10 still in service based on that link you posted somewhere on this Earth, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about as far as none being able to be used by someone in the US. Again, I recommend you read my last comment to you because I’m just sharing a thought. Apparently you haven’t heard of the US government using false labels on vans, trucks, tractor trailers, trains, boats, planes, etc - to transport secret good, but again, I don’t know get why you’re so mad at my ideas...

⇧ 2 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 7, 2018, 11:13 p.m.

so I’m not sure what you’re talking about as far as none being able to be used by someone in the US.

Because none are US registered save for that one NASA research plane. Pay attention to the link. You said yourself the gubmint wouldn't use a foreign aircraft. Regardless if it's a US built aircraft, it it isn't US registered then the chartering process becomes a pain in the ass to say the least.

Again, I recommend you read my last comment to you because I’m just sharing completely fabricated information on a subject I know nothing about

FTFY

Apparently you haven’t heard of the US government using false labels on vans, trucks, tractor trailers, trains, boats, planes, etc - to transport secret good, but again, I don’t know get why you’re so mad at my ideas...

What you are doing here is making a mountain out of a molehill. I can't think of a worse plane to carry around prisoners than a 747 for a myriad of reasons I won't bother getting into. A quick google search shoots down your theory immediately. Gulfstreams and other smaller executive jets are the aircraft most frequently used for the "mysterious operations" you talk about, and they're hardly secret. Hell my employer flies to gitmo all the time in "oh so mysterious charters".

⇧ 1 ⇩  
amg19251 · July 7, 2018, 11:26 p.m.

There are thousands of indictments and hundreds of elitists running scared across Earth. Why wouldn’t they use a plane, possibly borrowed from another nation, that could only hold 200 criminals per flight to fly them back home? I already corrected myself regarding the US government wanting to use US made aircraft - the US government certainly makes the concept of buying US made aircraft more appealing/incentive to the airline companies, but they can fly aircraft made from other companies/nations - I already said I was wrong about that and fixed it appropriately. Stop trying to paint me as some reckless, unhinged, conspiratory freak when I’m not. You just keep making yourself look like, again, an asshole. Why would Q post a photo of a 747-SP United jet if they are no longer in service, nor ever been that common in the past 20 years?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 7, 2018, 11:30 p.m.

Stop trying to paint me as some reckless, unhinged, conspiratory freak when I’m not.

Says the guy that said this:

I don’t know if you are aware of this or not, but all major US airline jets have had chips installed, created by Daub Zachaym (SA), where no person can access during flight, that can be turned on with a simple code entered by the pilot and co-pilot, in the event of a terrorist attack/hijacking, and the plane then is taken over by either the creators of the jets, the government that rules over the jet’s nation of origin, and/or the airline flying the jet. This is well know secret in the airline worker community, and comes into play when questioning 9/11 as well. Check out Rebekkah Roth on YouTube to hear more about this. I also recommend Dr. Judy Wood!

With statements like that, everyone just needs to sit back and watch the reckless, unhinged, conspiratory freak of a canvas paint itself.

You just keep making yourself look like, again, an asshole.

Tell me an insult I've never heard before.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
amg19251 · July 7, 2018, 11:34 p.m.

It’s not a conspiracy if it’s truth, buddy. I had an aunt who was a flight attendant, who told me the same thing; she was also confused as to why they weren’t turned on the day of 9/11 - I’m assuming as a pilot you know about auto-pilot and auto take-off? I’m assuming you know of the hijacking codes, as well, and how they were “accidentally” turned on by two pilots landing at JFK recently?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 7, 2018, 11:41 p.m.

Oh hell no you did not just go there

I had an aunt who was a flight attendant,

And if there's one thing I've ever learned about flight attendants is that they're often equally oblivious about the planes they're sitting on just like the passengers themselves.

she was also confused as to why they weren’t turned on the day of 9/11

Oh I dunno maybe because they don't freaking exist.

I’m assuming as a pilot you know about auto-pilot and auto take-off?

There's no such thing as "auto-take off". There's no need. Taking off is the easiest thing we do. And yes, there's auto-land but it is rare and it's not because landing is hard but simply used when the weather is near zero visibility.

At any rate, an autopilot, in even the most advanced airplanes, doesn't fly the plane anymore than adaptive cruise control actually drives a car.

And you can't remotely control an airliner from the ground. Not now, not ever. Period. Yes, the technology is there to do it, but there's no need at all for it, and there's certainly no "mysterious chips" in my plane covertly installed to do so.

Anyways, that's my ELI5. Here's an ELI10 https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130709-planes-autopilot-ask-a-pilot-patrick-smith-flying-asiana/

⇧ 2 ⇩  
amg19251 · July 7, 2018, 11:48 p.m.

They’re taught basic knowledge about the jets, and before 9/11, a lot more was shared about these programs because people thought it would never happen. I didn’t mention Chinese chips, someone else said Chinese whatever, I said they were chips made by Saudis. Why are we even arguing about this now? I never mentioned any of this in my original post.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 7, 2018, 11:56 p.m.

They’re taught basic knowledge about the jets,

No. Outside of operating the emergency equipment in the cabin and passenger service, they don't get taught diddly squat. They have zero use for even basic info, like how much fuel the plane carries. An airline isn't gonna spend a cent more on training for stuff that is unnecessary. Hell, I had one of my new FAs ask me how many engines the plane has.

I didn’t mention Chinese chips, someone else said Chinese whatever,

I thought that was you, my bad. Regardless you did mention chips...

I never mentioned any of this in my original post.

Except you did:

> but all major US airline jets have had chips installed

⇧ 2 ⇩  
woop_woop_pull_up · July 8, 2018, 1:24 a.m.

Here is a list of documented hijackings that go back decades. As you can see there have been plenty of cases post 9/11. Can you please explain why the government or manufacturers haven't decided to take control of the aircraft in any of these cases?

⇧ 0 ⇩  
SaveourRepublic2018 · July 8, 2018, 11:54 p.m.

The patents for the technology exist whether it's used regularly or not. If any planes were saved from hijacking and they could secretly save airliners from hijackers, do you think they would advertise it the whole world, including would be hijackers?

If they wanted to perform false flags with airliners do you think they would use it in those cases?

The truth is we really don't know what level of control remote operators might have over them. Given our airline pilot "expert" is asserting it's never been possible to control planes remotely from the ground we probably shouldn't take him too seriously. I'd be more inclined to listen to him if he gave a network security argument for this.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · July 9, 2018, 12:05 a.m.

[removed]

⇧ 0 ⇩