SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

The US Airways Hudson River Conspiracy

by Brian Dunning, Jan 22 2009
US Airways Flight 1549

US Airways Flight 1549

As if it wasn’t enough to expect us to believe that the Twin Towers could collapse from plane impacts and fire alone, now “THEY” want us to believe that an aircraft could make a perfect landing in a river and everyone could just stroll right out like nothing’s wrong.

When I first heard that there were actually conspiracy theories and that this plane crash never actually happened, I thought it was a joke. Someone did write a great lampoon theory on Skeptalk — which admittedly took me a minute to realize it was a joke — but check out what one forum poster has actually claimed.

On January 15, 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 lost both engines after takeoff to bird strikes and ditched into the Hudson River. In one of the best pieces of news in a long time, all survived, with only one injury, albeit serious. The NTSB’s preliminary accident report is here.

Blogger Martin at The Lay Scientist made some great comments on this thread by “TruthSleuth” at where actual pilots were discussing the actual event. TruthSleuth said:

I’m not a conspiracy theorist…

… But I’m also not into coincidence theories, either.

I’m VERY troubled by yesterday’s ditching of Flight 1549. It doesn’t make sense to me.

Consider these points:

– Apparently, a flock of birds knocked out two engines but didn’t leave an impact on the nose (as you know much more flimsy than engines).

– This picture is heavily Photoshopped… when you zoom in, you see all sorts of cut and paste artwork… even the USAir logo is pasted onto the plane. Why?

Also in this picture are dozens and dozens of “survivors”… it’s hard to count because the picture is so fuzzy and distant (a common theme… distant and fuzzy pics). How can more than 20 people stand on a wing and not collapse it?

– Where are the closeup pictures… if you watch any of the coverage yesterday, all of the camera angles were distant shots… even with the media within hundreds of yards of the scene. Why?

– As of this moment, I’ve yet to see a single video of the ditching… not one, And I’ve searched everywhere (including YouTube) — how can this be? Everyone seems to have a cell phone these days… especially in New York. What about CCTV cameras from the Port Authority… someone has to have a video of this, yet we see nothing. Why?

– One pilot (who if I remember posted here in this thread) lived near the crash scene admits he didn’t see the plane ditch… didn’t hear the plane ditch, but then saw the plane floating. Odd don’t you think?

– The only witnesses of the actual ditching were members of the media (who as you know cover all sorts of things up)… example:

“I just thought, ‘Why is it so low?’ And, splash, it hit the water,” said witness Barbara Sambriski, a researcher at The Associated Press.

– The media is reporting, “It appears to be the first time that a large commercial jet liner ever has made a successful controlled landing into a body of water.” Another coincidence. A “Miracle” is the media mantra about this. Can this plane really survive a ditching without nearly a scratch… really?

I could go on and on with minor stuff, but I hope you get my drift.

Don’t think a bird can hurt an airliner’s engine? Here’s a GNARLY YouTube video of a 757 sucking up a bird (you can actually see the bird go in), and then the engine flames out. Then you can hear the radio conversation as the pilot calls a MayDay and they arrange for his emergency landing. Luckily for this guy, he still had one engine to get around on.

Don’t think an airplane wing can hold the weight of 75 people standing on it? Just check out this video of a wing load test on a Boeing 777. Not the same type of plane as Flight 1549, but it gives you some idea of the standards these type of craft are built to. The wing actually bends 24 feet before shattering.

Note that each wing of an A320 on the ground must support the weight of about 19,000 kg of fuel, or 42,000 pounds, or the weight of 278 people who weigh 150 pounds each. And it’s certainly not engineered to break at that point. No, TruthSleuth, the weight of 75 people is not a problem for an A320’s wing to support, even if it was not floating and supported by the buoyancy of the fuel in the tank.

It’s fair that the videos of the plane crashing into the water hadn’t yet been found and released at the time TruthSleuth wrote his post. TruthSleuth seems to suspect that there’s a more probable way that that 1549 could have gotten into the river without being seen. Like, being trucked along the roads, reassembled at the water’s edge, craned into the water, and towed into position, without anyone noticing.

But we could go on and on addressing each of TruthSleuth’s concerns, and that’s been done both in Martin’s blog and on the pilots’ forum. He asks fair questions, that any reasonable person might ask. Joe Blow on the street doesn’t happen to know engineering details of the A320. But TruthSleuth is clearly not just a reasonable person asking reasonable questions.

  1. He calls himself “TruthSleuth”. He begins with the (to him) obvious presumption that there is a hidden truth here. To him, CONSPIRACY is the default hypothesis. Note that the first words out of his mouth are to be defensive about this.
  2. Delusional claims of Photoshopping. Come on, supposedly someone is spending millions of dollars to accomplish this fake ditching, and they forget to paint the name of the airline on the side of the plane? And then they set about to CG every single frame of news footage? And then, what, pay off all the salvage workers and NTSB investigators who have the wreckage in front of them, to have them pretend to see “US AIRWAYS” on the side of the plane? This is not a reasonable question. Seeing something incredible in a photograph that’s clearly not there (whether it’s a Bigfoot or evidence of Photoshopping) is a classical delusion.
  3. Repeated use of the word “coincidence”. Conspiracy theorists see coincidences everywhere, too incredible to believe. But I can’t think of a single coincidence associated with this event. What is he seeing?

Anyway, it’s a sad thing. But, to be fair, everyone is delusional to some degree. Whether you think everyone in the room is looking at you because you have a hair out of place, or whether you think George Bush towed Flight 1549 out into the Hudson River, it’s a delusion. The closer we can all get to the “low” end of that spectrum, the better. I don’t know if rationally answering TruthSleuth’s questions will push him in that direction, because I don’t think his questions stem from an honest desire to learn, but rather from a desire to justify his delusion. But rationally answering them is always the best response.

68 Responses to “The US Airways Hudson River Conspiracy”

  1. Carl von Blixen says:

    A similar incident is in Sweden known as Gottrörakraschen. December 21 1993 Scandinavian Airlines Flight 751 lost both engines and went down in a field. Amazingly everyone on board survived.

    An odd detail regarding that crash is that the airline logos were painted over shortly after the crash, which is why you don’t see any in the picture used in the wikipedia article.

  2. Unbelievable. Some people don’t have enough to do, I guess. According to the aircraft specs. it’s fully loaded take-off weight is 77 tons. The wings support the lion’s share of that weight. And there is video here:

    Of all the things to see conspiracy in, why a plane crash with a happy ending?

    Love the blog, btw. :-)

  3. Ranson says:

    Painting over aircraft logos after a crash seems to be a common thing. I recall a crash in China a year or two back where that was almost the first priority after rescue/fire operations. I heard it was to minimize bad PR for the airline by keeping their logo out of subsequent pictures. That way, people wouldn’t subconsciously associate that logo with “crash”.

  4. Wrysmile says:

    Wouldn’t the oblivious question to ask Truthsleuth simply be – why?

  5. cuggy says:

    Though I’m not sure exactly which pictures he’s referring to, conspiracy theorists always seem to mistake basic jpeg compression artifacts for evidence of photoshopping. No, it’s evidence of a small file.

  6. Eric L says:

    But really, is the bogus logic behind these conspiracy theories all that much more delusional than Sean Hannity on FOX news going off on how Senators who support legislation for the protection of geese are partly to blame and should have been held responsible if anyone had been killed in the crash, while his guest nod in approval? All the while implying we would all be better off if we just got rid of the geese. No one really cares about this conspiracy fool, while Hannity has an audience of…how many dittoheads? Just saying

  7. Brandon says:

    I’m tired of everyone calling this a “miracle.” Does there really have to be divine intervention here? Isn’t it enough to attribute everyone’s safety to Captain Sullenberger’s expert piloting skills? The media really isn’t helping this point.

  8. Ranson says:

    @ Brandon

    I’ve noted that elsewhere. Wouldn’t a kind, benevolent, interventionist deity have simply not crashed the plane?

  9. Mike B says:

    Excellent debunking, Brian. My first instinct in response to Sleuth’s comment of 75 people breaking an aircraft wing was to consider the entire weight of the fuel.

    Furthermore, the pilot was the right person for this job. His expert training, experience and skills prevailed in making the water landing successful.

  10. Kapten Kalabajooie says:

    Slow conspiracy month. It’ll get better with the new administration, don’t you worry your little heads.

  11. Jackal says:

    There were pleanty of conspiracies surrounding Obama leading up to the inaguration. He’s muslim, the devil, not a US citezen, etc… none worth debunking here. I’m not a regular reader, though, so maybe they did debunk some here.

  12. Mastriani says:


    This isn’t a joke? Are you sure? Someone is actually claiming a conspiracy involving this flight?

    We really need more research into altering genetics, this is pathetic beyond all reason.

    I’m dumbfounded with the unmitigated idiocy.

  13. ddr says:

    When a plane is in the air, the wings are supporting the entire weight of the plane, fuel and passengers. What else does he think is holding the plane up? If the wing could not support the weight of passengers standing on it, then it could not support their weight when the wing is supplying lift to keep them in the air.

  14. Karina Wright says:


    The picture he posted at the Pilots forum is one taken by Janis Krums (a Twitterer) who was on one of the ferries heading to the plane. He took it with his cell phone and there was some water splashing on the lens as well.

  15. Mastriani says:

    There’s raw video all over you tube, mostly PA CCTV???

  16. Infinite Monkey says:

    I can debunk the lack of immediate witnesses and video coverage!

    When you live near an airport, you learn to ingore the sounds of planes, so if you lived in the area, you wouldn’t pay any attention to the noise of the aircraft. At most, you would just think, “wow, that plane is really loud!”

    It just so happens that I used to live right under the traffic path of an airport, really close to an air force base, and across the street from a railroad. After a while, you get immune to the noise.

  17. Here is a great experiment you can do to someone to demonstrate this idea of the “default hypothesis”:

    Ask them to look around the room wherever they are and notice everything that is red. Take inventory of it. Then ask them to close their eyes and tell you all the red things they saw. They will name a bunch. Then ask them to tell you anything they also saw in the room which was yellow.

    They often won’t be able to name a single yellow item. When they open their eyes they will see a bunch of yellow items all around them.

    How did they not see them the first time? They were “blind” to it.

    Human beings are great at finding evidence for what we already believe! Beliefs are so powerful. Powerful enough to make us “blind” to facts which are right in front of us.

  18. ejdalise says:

    I don’t know . . . seems plausible to me.

    Did you notice the supposed crash-landing left no imprint on the water? Where is the evidence of the impact? And even after sitting on the water for many hours, there was no evidence of the plane ever having been there once it was supposedly “removed”.

    As for reasons for the cover-up . . . Has anyone considered this might have been the “missing” from 9/11? Storage costs were probably mounting, and with a new administration coming in “they” probably wanted to get it off the books. What better way than to fake a crash?

    . . . they are clever, them conspirators.

  19. MadScientist says:

    Oh no, more idiots who think because they don’t see something every day that it is impossible and conspiracies must be invoked. I don’t know which is worse – that or invoking god for the ‘miraculous’ landing.

    The people on that plane were very fortunate; they had an excellent captain who remained calm and reacted very quickly in one of the rare and worst failure scenarios you can imagine for a flight. The captain even followed through with the old tradition of ‘going down with the ship’ (no, you don’t go down with the ship, you make sure everyone else is safe or else go down while carrying out that duty), so the captain really brings great honor to his profession. Conspiracy loons not only belittle what that captain has done but deny the terror and physical suffering of the people on board. It was certainly no picnic; although everyone survived some people did have pretty bad injuries.

  20. I’m pretty sure you can see the shadow of a submerged NWO sub in that one picture…….

    I’m also pretty sure this wasn’t the main event, but merely a diversion from the actual dastardly deed. And do we know what that was?


  21. Erika says:

    After reading TruthSleuth’s questions and replies, I saw an attitude that is very disturbing. He commented that since he sees “Don’t step here” labels all over the wing, that the entire wing must be incredibly fragile, so how can people stand on the wing?

    I understand some of his point, I see the labels too. And I see the panels that the labels are attached to, and sometimes the wires underneath the panels. And I make the assumption: The wings are obviously strong enough to hold the plane up, and we’re supposed to use them to get out in an emergency, so they cannot be that fragile. Therefore the labels must be certain areas on the wing that you’re not supposed to step on for fear of damaging these areas before the flight. A bit of logic and observation.

    TruthSleuth didn’t do anything like that. He sees a label, “Don’t step here” and this is his law of reality. He doesn’t go farther in any logical assumptions, he simply expands the label to mean the entire wing. All or nothing.

    Every one of his questions is based on that worldview. If a bird can take out an engine, then it should take out the nose of a plane too, otherwise a bird did not take out the engine. He sees JPeg artifacts and concludes that the digital image has been tampered with. All or nothing. Since the plane landed without breaking apart (The early pictures did not show the engine that had been ripped off, so I’ll be nice on that one), and planes cannot make a crash landing without major damage, the plane obviously did not make that miracle landing. All or nothing.

    I’m seeing this attitude becoming more and more prevalent. Politics, science, disasters — to people like TruthSleuth it must be all or nothing. Everyone knows from watching TV and the movies that planes crash land in millions of pieces, usually with a convenient explosion to make it look really spiffy. Therefore all plane crashes must look and act like that in real life. I don’t think TruthSleuth is a classic CT’er — he lacks the overtly paranoid attitude that seems to be a hallmark of a classic CT’er. Rather he seems very confused that the world isn’t like TV or the movies, and that the things he sees aren’t as concrete as they ought to be (the plane labels). This is the worldview that we need to fight. Let’s face it, fighting against a classic CT’er is just not going to get you anywhere. But if we can explain and show how reality actually works to people like TruthSleuth, we hopefully can prevent them from becoming a CT’er.

    IMHO, of course.

  22. MadScientist says:


    I object to birds being ‘sucked in'; with a typical recommended safe takeoff speed for heavy aircraft of about 150 knots, birds are ‘swatted’ in flight rather than sucked in. Maybe I should do the physical calculations – they go something like this:

    * the best a jet engine can do is create a vacuum on the intake (and that just doesn’t happen, but I don’t know what the effective pressure is at the intake)
    * assuming a ‘permanent’ vacuum we can calculate how quickly the air around would rush in
    * the air would rush in from more or less a hemispherical region
    * the pressure difference (and therefore the force applied to an object in the region) will drop off with the square of the distance from the cowl

    So if the engine is running on the ground, with ambient pressure about 100 kilo Pascals, assuming a 2m square cross-section at the cowl and a perfect vacuum within the cowl, that amounts to about the force of a 2 ton weight pushing on a 2m square object at the intake. So I’ll concede that anything getting near the intake on the ground will be pushed in quite violently (still not ‘sucked’ though). It’s a different matter in flight; can birds indeed be pushed in by the air pressure or is the dominant effect one of being swatted?

    As for the loading on the wings; in flight there will be force on the fuselage and wings, but you can think of it as the wings supporting the entire weight of the fuselage. The wings certainly aren’t flimsy. 20 people! hah! Elevators can take more than that and they’re not built to withstand as much abuse as the wings of a heavy aircraft.

  23. MadScientist says:

    @Eric L:

    Obviously many animals inconvenience us, so we should just exterminate the lot. When all other animals and plants are dead, earth will be a paradise! Now here’s where the George Dubbyah school of (*cough*) ‘thought’ comes into play. It’s analogous to the terrorist attacks on the WTC. One event and we have to go on a holy crusade to wipe out the source of evil – in this case geese. I’ll even bet they’re Canadian geese because, you know, those Canadians are a little weird.

  24. WRMartin says:

    I imagine ‘TruthSleuth’ hasn’t seen this conspiracy either:

    I wonder what they were using instead of PhotoShop to manipulate photographs in 1954?
    Is there a Poe equivalent for conspiracy ‘theorists’? If so, I’m calling it – whatever it’s called.

  25. Protesilaus says:

    Okay, I have read that email a dozen times and I have yet to find the Rick-Roll in it. I know it is there somewhere.

  26. Truthseeker says:

    Truth Sleuth does an admittedly terrible job laying out just one of the many puzzling facts that don’t fit the official reports, but this does not prove that there isn’t more to this “crash” than the official story. If the wings are so strong then why did the engines fall off? Why can’t we find the engines? How did the plane manage to glide further than the glide path? Isn’t it suspicious that the same Port Authority came to rescue the survivors are the ones who “pulled” the World Trade Center on 9/11? These are just a few of the many questions that *real* skeptics ought to be asking to anyone who believes the official explanation.

  27. boxofbirds says:


    The engines of an airliner are designed to shear off in the event of a crash landing. Both of the engines have been found in the Hudson.

    And no, it does not at all seem suspicious that the Port Authority would come to the rescue in the Hudson river.

  28. Max says:

    “I don’t think his questions stem from an honest desire to learn, but rather from a desire to justify his delusion. But rationally answering them is always the best response.”

    Is debunking the best response? It might help people who are merely confused, but the conspiracy theorist will just ignore the debunking and pile on more questions.

    Here are some responses that may be more effective:
    1. Force the conspiracy theorist to debunk his own theory. “Can you think of any mundane answers to this question?” “What do you think really happened, and do you have any doubts about that?”

    2. Dig deeper to the root of the conspiracy theorist’s bias. Is he anti-establishment because his dad abused him? Ok, maybe not that deep, but you get the idea.

    3. If all else fails, reduce the burden on skeptics by getting conspiracy theorists to debate each other, though that’s kind of like debating whose religion is right.

  29. Max says:

    Truthseeker is not a conspiracy theorist either ;-)

  30. Bill says:

    @Truthseeker – thanks for the 429truth link. Freakin’ brilliant lampoon of conspiracy theorist nonsense.

    The only thing he’s missing is the lame disclaimer that says something like “I’m not alleging that there’s a conspiracy – I’m just asking questions.”

  31. Pete says:

    What I don’t see answered – to what end was the plane crash supposedly faked?

  32. i think you guys have it all backwards ; the plane crashed but not in the way the media or the pilot told you ; but why should i waste time in the macroblogger world, which is sooo preObama slow, lol ;

  33. MadScientist says:

    A bird’s view:

    We were just gliding along and chatting on our way to our usual annual holidays in the Florida Keys when BANG! Some flying monkeys appeared out of nowhere! They hit Shane, Deborah, John, cousin Albert – it was horrible! There was blood and feathers everywhere! I think my psyche is permanently scarred; where can I find a good quack?

  34. DanielB says:

    Here is more stuff about the guy Brian quoted. (mind the nag popups on exit, but it’s small and ad-free)

    There are the usuals about fluoride, vaccines, 9/11 (of course), other Skeptoid targets, but some conspiracies I have never even heard of before! He seems to be particularly afraid of Jesuits, because, um, liberal Catholics are scary?

  35. I vomit blood every time the tinfoiler conspiracy theorists drum up another deluded theory. Can someone PLEASE blame the NWO to make this conspiracy theory complete?

    Ooooh! OOOH! Maybe the aircraft was a “chemtrail” black ops aircraft! Those conartists…I mean contrails…oops I mean chemtrails are nasty!

    I had a friend once who looked up at the sky. He saw chemical trails being sprayed by a NWO planer and he died right on the spot! I’m not going to mention he was standing on a busy freeway at the time. Let’s just blame the NWO anyway.

  36. Courtney Franklin says:

    Truthseeker that name is apt. When are the so called truthseekers going to test their evidence out.

  37. jm says:

    Supposedly HAARP, the government weather control device, can influence migration patterns. Why were there birds that far north in that cold of weather?

    The other day I was driving down the high way and saw a flock of birds directly over the interstate doing some crazy patterns. It was funny because I have been doubting that birds took down the hudson plane, but when that happened to me I was like oh, I guess birds really do crazy things.

    But they seemed almost controlled to go right over the high way and maybe even right over the run way.

    Just a thought.

  38. Remote controlled birds? Ha! No seriously?

    Firstly, HAARP is a conspiracy theorist happy meal. It doesn’t effect the weather. The only thing HAARP seems to do is unwillingly take a role in conspiracy theorist’s fairy tales. Secondly, scientists study bird migration, migration routes and patterns. Are you well versed in the migration patterns? I’m not. So therefor it would be silly for either of us to speculate about the migration. That’s what makes conspiracy theories bunk. The theories are based on speculation and plots that have little or no foundation in truth or fact.

    Birds can and have caused major damage to aircraft. A single animal can do incredible damage. Now imagine what a flock of birds could potentially do. As aircraft speeds have increased, the severity and importance of bird/aircraft impact have also increased. Take the speed on the aircraft, add that to the speed of the bird and you get the impact speed. Look up bird strike and you’ll get plenty of information as to what impact a small animal can have.

    Here’s a list of selected incidents.

    I am certain the only birds pilots want to see during a flight are the ones on their dinner plate.

  39. Mrs P says:

    Well, as crazy as this may sound, it turns out there were employees from both Bank of America and Wells Fargo on board. BOA had 23 employees on board, Wells Fargo had three. Coincedentally, their stock was crashing that very same day, it lost 25% of it’s value in a few hours. I also find it odd that the pilot was missing in action soon after. Why, I wondered?

  40. Yup, these conspiracy theorists will grab onto anything they perceive as validating their twisted worldview. I did a blog entry on this last week and it got a huge amount of traffic – much of it from the conspiracy woo-meisters. The folks over at the David Icke Forums are going overtime on this…

  41. Mastriani says:

    I also find it odd that the pilot was missing in action soon after. Why, I wondered?

    Ummm, it’s called a debriefing maybe? Maybe including a medical exam and blood tests? Then comes the NTSB and FAA.

    Consider that since 9/11, every airline incident has the possibility of being investigated by DHS, CIA, FBI, U.S. Marshall’s Service and dependent upon the situation, as in this case, the Coast Guard and PA.

    Then after any/all agencies that he/she has to be debriefed by, there’s still the reporting to his/her employer airline.

    Perhaps you aren’t familiar with basic government operations. Everything has a form, and every agency has their own form, and then all forms have to be collected, reviewed and passed along the particular chain of command of the particular agency.

    That might take a little time, I mean, it would if government officials weren’t so massively efficient in their task handling.

  42. Devin says:

    We are all quick to judge on you tube when we see a fake video this incident could be “fake” on a bigger scale. Would not be surprised if this turns out to be some sort of viral stunt in the end. Maybe this is the sequel to the Montauk Monster.

  43. Max says:

    Devin, if you’re serious, can you give a historical example of an event of similar magnitude that most of us would agree was a viral stunt? A little more magnitude than the Montauk Monster.

  44. ejdalise says:

    Now we are in for it!! Geraldo Rivera has gotten on the band wagon.

    What mystifies me is . . . what is being hidden here? What’s behind this “conspiracy”?

    Has anyone come up with some plausible reason why should not be taken at face value? Are all the passengers in on it? Is someone seriously proposing this did not happen?!?!

    Lost; we’re lost, I tell you! I know skeptic like to believe we are making headway toward a world predominantly steeped in reason, but I see quite the opposite. They are coming out of the woodwork; armies of credulous cockroaches spreading their delusions. You can’t kill them; you can’t reason with them; you can’t ignore them. They are showing up everywhere . . . it’s only a matter of ti… oh FSM! . . . no! . . . NO!! . . . . ARRRGGHHhhh

  45. [PugMan] says:

    There are pictures circulating in espace that show the air craft being lifted out of the river. Damage of the nose is visible and only one of the engines sheared off. The other engine is still attached but very damaged.

    Got find another conspiracy, this event is not.
    Maybe you could find something constrcutive to do with your time.

  46. Perhaps the birds were recruited by Al Qaeda?

  47. Well, I’ve now seen at least a couple of different versions of conspiracy theory on this. The first was that it was part of a NWO “inside job” on the part of the Bush administration that got botched; another attempt at a 9/11-style event. An offshoot CT from this is that it was meant as a distraction by the (of course) mainstream media – run by the Jews – to get everyone’s attention off the Gaza War and supposed atrocities committed by Israel.

    The second CT I’ve seen on this was from a comment on my recent blog post…

    The guy commented that birds didn’t take Flight 1549 down, rather it was because the engines were in extremely poor shape and U.S. Airways was covering it all up, seemingly with the collaboration of the government, by blaming bird-strikes. Specifically, the poster referred to this as follows:

    “… it was aeromercantalist greed keeping a plane and its engines in service while the airline full well knew it was dangerous.

    You believe geese brought that plane down? Really? Was that before or after a band of ducks got together at a 12-seat table in Switzerland and decided Obama should be President? Seriously.”

    Of course, this guy didn’t cite any evidence beyond alluding to a story by Geraldo Rivera and Bill O’Reilly about the supposedly previously damaged engines, but then you’ll have to pardon me if I don’t hold either of those gentlemen in very high journalistic regard. I’d need something a bit more solid to go on before giving this one any credence.

  48. Predictions:

    1. Someone will tie the ‘miraculous’ UA Flt 1549 splash landing to a Nostradamus quatrain.

    2. Someone will tie the ‘miraculous’ UA Flt 1549 splash landing to some negative suspicion about the outgoing Bush administration.

    3. Someone will tie the ‘miraculous’ UA Flt 1549 splash landing to the Hudson River Monster, which obviously held the plane up on its back.

    4. Someone will tie the ‘miraculous’ UA Flt 1549 splash landing to ghosts, because so many people have died over the centuries in the proximate area of NYC.

    5. Someone will tie the ‘miraculous’ UA Flt 1549 splash landing to Uri Geller, who will accordingly make some crazy claim to have facilitated the pilot using telepathy.

    6. Someone will tie the ‘miraculous’ UA Flt 1549 splash landing to UFOs having brought the plane down.

    7. Someone will tie the ‘miraculous’ UA Flt 1549 splash landing to UFOs having held the plane up.

    8. Someone will tie the ‘miraculous’ UA Flt 1549 splash landing to a wild welding together of the aquatic ape idea and bigfoot.

    9. Someone will tie the ‘miraculous’ UA Flt 1549 splash landing to a Bible Code finding.

    10. Someone will tie the ‘miraculous’ UA Flt 1549 splash landing to the Fraternal Order of Freemasons.

  49. Militant Agnostic says:

    The bits of feather and bird guts known as snarge whch are left on compressor blades are sent to the Feather Identification Lab at the Smitsonian which is run by Carla Dove. With a name like that she must be an agent of our secret avain overlords.

    This lab looks at the remains of of over 4000 bird strikes per year.

  50. gwen says:

    I will now forever associate the airline’s logo with damn fine crews, and feel very safe on board the next time I fly (and I HATE to fly)!

  51. Don Vogt says:

    Why don’t you all recognize the “Miraculous Landing” as the lead-in for the next season of “Lost”?

  52. Shahar Lubin says:

    And 9/11 was a lead-in for “Lord of the rings – the two towers”?

  53. Morgan Driscoll says:

    Just a quick aside… The intrepid has a webcam on it’s antenna, and since I couldn’t find coverage right away, I looked there and sure enough, there was the plane and the logo on the tail. Soooo… I guess the conspiracy runs pretty deep.

  54. Paul Battis says:

    Question everything. This same plane had an engine problem two days earlier while making the same flight from LGA to Charlotte. Same flight number and pilot too. I’m wondering after the first problem two days before the crash why the plane wasn’t taken out of service.

    You folks that say people are idiots for not beleiving and questioning what you feel is obvious. . .well, nothing is obvious.

  55. jm says:

    The day I heard about the crash I wasn’t thinking “conspiracy” I was thinking “what an embarrassment.” And then the very next day the pilot was proclaimed a hero and the story was being displayed from coast to coast. My theory: the airlines messed up big time and now are using this hero story as a cover.

    I mean the crew was at the Super bowl for christ sake. Isn’t that a little over doing it? Must have been a slow news day…er, month (s)

  56. jojotwentytwo says:

    check out the videos at port engine still attached to jet early in recovery?

  57. Simon says:

    Someone should rename this blog “PseudoSkeptic Blog”.

  58. Simon says:

    Wow, look at all the idiots on this blog. They think they’re superior because they believe the official story. Sadly for them, us free thinkers are looking down on them and laughing.

  59. Syn says:

    Watch better Simon, you’re BELOW in this blog (ok i’m below you cause the others plotted a conspiracy for keeping no room for me above).

  60. carrie says:

    “The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”

    – Morpheus, The Matrix

  61. Charles says:

    YouTube Video ” Video of US Airways descent into Hudson River released

    See The Twin Towers In The Background?


  62. Charles says:

    YouTube Video ” Video of US Airways descent into Hudson River released


    See The Twin Towers In The Background?


  63. Dick Cheney says:

    The first thing that made me realize that this “miracle” was a hoax, was that it happened on the last day of the Bush-Cheney Presidency. Talk about diverting attention from the issues… Once again Cheney, always the master of EVERYTHING he touches, has pulled the wool over your eyes again. And how did the pilot just so happen to be the guy who has trained pilots on these such ditching techniques for over 20 years? Coincidence? Don’t be so naive…

  64. Supafly says:

    This ‘miracle’ landing occured shortly after Israel had bombed a hospital, killing hundreds of innocent people. Guess where the media attention was focussed?

  65. Damon Gifford says:

    Heres a thought. Just the first, easy thought i had about this. Did anyone ever consider the possibility that truesleuth is covering the real story with an even darker shroud of lies, possibly a distraction?
    Im not even gonna go into the hundreds of reasons the entire airline industry NEEDED a miracle.
    The “crash” happened. Maybe the question is why.