Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

The fire on engine #1 was catastrophic.. an uncontained failure that sent debris flying uncontrollably... but the real killer was the immediate compressor stall on #2, visible right here in the footage as that telltale puff of flame. This almost certainly resulted from Foreign Object Debris (FOD) ingestion, where...

Fahadnaimb's profile picture

Fahad Naim

19,694 subscribers

985,164 views • 9 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & PoliticsScience & Technology
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

ENGINE FAILURE FORCES UNITED B777 BACK TO DULLES AFTER TAKEOFF United Airlines Flight 803, a Boeing 777-200(N78004) bound for Tokyo, safely returned to Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) on Saturday after suffering a loss of power in one engine shortly after departure. The engine issue on takeoff reportedly sparked a small brush fire along the runway, with airport fire crews responding immediately and remaining on scene as a precaution. The aircraft was seen dumping fuel before making an emergency landing back at IAD. There were 275 passengers and 15 crew members on board. No injuries were reported. United confirmed the incident, stating the flight returned shortly after takeoff to address the engine power loss and landed safely. To assist affected passengers, United temporarily closed a United Club lounge at Dulles while working to rebook customers to their destinations. The FAA also confirmed the event, noting that Flight 803 returned to Dulles around 1:20 p.m. local time after experiencing an engine failure during departure. The FAA has opened an investigation.
0:30

ENGINE FAILURE FORCES UNITED B777 BACK TO DULLES AFTER TAKEOFF United Airlines Flight 803, a Boeing 777-200(N78004) bound for Tokyo, safely returned to Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) on Saturday after suffering a loss of power in one engine shortly after departure. The engine issue on takeoff reportedly sparked a small brush fire along the runway, with airport fire crews responding immediately and remaining on scene as a precaution. The aircraft was seen dumping fuel before making an emergency landing back at IAD. There were 275 passengers and 15 crew members on board. No injuries were reported. United confirmed the incident, stating the flight returned shortly after takeoff to address the engine power loss and landed safely. To assist affected passengers, United temporarily closed a United Club lounge at Dulles while working to rebook customers to their destinations. The FAA also confirmed the event, noting that Flight 803 returned to Dulles around 1:20 p.m. local time after experiencing an engine failure during departure. The FAA has opened an investigation.

Turbine Traveller

98,034 views • 8 months ago

🚨 CRITICAL Engine failure during takeoff The crew didn’t hesitate they turned the Gulfstream G200 around immediately for an emergency landing in the Dominican Republic. What happened next was devastating. The private jet, on a charter flight to Texas with only the two pilots on board, crashed and erupted into a massive fireball during the landing attempt. Neither pilot survived. In those final, frantic moments, everything that could go wrong… did. A tragic reminder that in aviation, even routine flights can turn deadly in seconds. Thoughts with their families. What do you think went wrong here? 👇
0:13

🚨 CRITICAL Engine failure during takeoff The crew didn’t hesitate they turned the Gulfstream G200 around immediately for an emergency landing in the Dominican Republic. What happened next was devastating. The private jet, on a charter flight to Texas with only the two pilots on board, crashed and erupted into a massive fireball during the landing attempt. Neither pilot survived. In those final, frantic moments, everything that could go wrong… did. A tragic reminder that in aviation, even routine flights can turn deadly in seconds. Thoughts with their families. What do you think went wrong here? 👇

Dr MJ Augustine Vinod 🇮🇳

19,400 views • 2 months ago

Data released by the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in response to a freedom of information request, shows that the fuel switches to both engines were shut off simultaneously before China Eastern Airlines flight MU5735 dropped out of the sky and crashed in March 2022. It was China’s deadliest air disaster in decades, but the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) has not addressed the crucial question of what had prompted the deadly nosedive. The data was taken from the plane’s flight data recorder that record all relevant operational information — which was recovered from the wreckage and sent to the NTSB’s laboratory in Washington DC for analysis (with the agency’s involvement stemming from Boeing being a US aircraft manufacturer). “It was found that while cruising at 29,000 ft, the fuel switches on both engines moved from the run position to the cutoff position. Engine speeds decreased after the fuel switch movement,” the NTSB report said. China has not published an update into its investigation since 2024, when the CAAC released a statement on the two-year anniversary of the crash reiterating earlier findings that it found no problems with the aircraft, crew or weather conditions.
0:16

Data released by the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in response to a freedom of information request, shows that the fuel switches to both engines were shut off simultaneously before China Eastern Airlines flight MU5735 dropped out of the sky and crashed in March 2022. It was China’s deadliest air disaster in decades, but the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) has not addressed the crucial question of what had prompted the deadly nosedive. The data was taken from the plane’s flight data recorder that record all relevant operational information — which was recovered from the wreckage and sent to the NTSB’s laboratory in Washington DC for analysis (with the agency’s involvement stemming from Boeing being a US aircraft manufacturer). “It was found that while cruising at 29,000 ft, the fuel switches on both engines moved from the run position to the cutoff position. Engine speeds decreased after the fuel switch movement,” the NTSB report said. China has not published an update into its investigation since 2024, when the CAAC released a statement on the two-year anniversary of the crash reiterating earlier findings that it found no problems with the aircraft, crew or weather conditions.

Breaking Aviation News & Videos

172,653 views • 3 months ago

😓 Air India 🇮🇳 Flight AI171 with fully loaded Boeing 787-7 Dreamliner fatal accident: I‘m an airline pilot with >15‘000h of experience and a physics institute: My brief PRELIMINARY analysis of the visible facts from the video of the takeoff: * The flaps are only slightly extended, presumably to position 1 instead of 5. * The landing gear is still extended, which should have been retracted at this altitude and causes additional drag. * The aircraft is at a high angle of attack, which confirms the insufficient flap setting. * From the video and witness accounts, only low engine noise is audible. * Neither smoke nor fire is visible. * An engine failure is less likely. The most probable cause is presumably a human factor, an incorrectly chosen, insufficient flap setting for takeoff, and consequently an inadequately selected thrust. In this context, the correlated speeds were too low because they were calculated for a larger flap setting or a lighter aircraft. As a result, the aircraft took off with insufficient speed and intentionally but falsely derated thrust, was therefore on the unstable side, and rapidly lost more speed and altitude due to the additional failure to retract the landing gear in a timely manner, leading to a subsequent stall at low altitude and crash. For the experts: the aircraft got onto the wrong side of the speed vs drag curve and maneuvered itself into a corner from where there is no escape. Another possible cause could also have been an incorrect input of a wrong takeoff weight into the Flight Management System, resulting in too low thrust and too low speeds. The pilots got startled after takeoff, couldn’t wrap their head around what went wrong and incorrectly prioritized making an emergency call instead of flying the aircraft first, manually increasing thrust immediately to maximum, and retracting the landing gear. In summary of this very early and preliminary assessment (your confidence level should be as low as mine): The most probable cause is human error 😓 - as most of the time these days. Not because the pilots got worse (although that effect can be observed as well with prioritization of diversity over competence) - but because technology got so much better.
0:16

😓 Air India 🇮🇳 Flight AI171 with fully loaded Boeing 787-7 Dreamliner fatal accident: I‘m an airline pilot with >15‘000h of experience and a physics institute: My brief PRELIMINARY analysis of the visible facts from the video of the takeoff: * The flaps are only slightly extended, presumably to position 1 instead of 5. * The landing gear is still extended, which should have been retracted at this altitude and causes additional drag. * The aircraft is at a high angle of attack, which confirms the insufficient flap setting. * From the video and witness accounts, only low engine noise is audible. * Neither smoke nor fire is visible. * An engine failure is less likely. The most probable cause is presumably a human factor, an incorrectly chosen, insufficient flap setting for takeoff, and consequently an inadequately selected thrust. In this context, the correlated speeds were too low because they were calculated for a larger flap setting or a lighter aircraft. As a result, the aircraft took off with insufficient speed and intentionally but falsely derated thrust, was therefore on the unstable side, and rapidly lost more speed and altitude due to the additional failure to retract the landing gear in a timely manner, leading to a subsequent stall at low altitude and crash. For the experts: the aircraft got onto the wrong side of the speed vs drag curve and maneuvered itself into a corner from where there is no escape. Another possible cause could also have been an incorrect input of a wrong takeoff weight into the Flight Management System, resulting in too low thrust and too low speeds. The pilots got startled after takeoff, couldn’t wrap their head around what went wrong and incorrectly prioritized making an emergency call instead of flying the aircraft first, manually increasing thrust immediately to maximum, and retracting the landing gear. In summary of this very early and preliminary assessment (your confidence level should be as low as mine): The most probable cause is human error 😓 - as most of the time these days. Not because the pilots got worse (although that effect can be observed as well with prioritization of diversity over competence) - but because technology got so much better.

Iven‘s Dad

2,786,743 views • 1 year ago

🚨🚨2-ALARM FIRE Tucson Fire was dispatched to a call of fire nature unknown at 3:37 this afternoon in the 3100 block of East 22nd Street. Engine 3 arrived six minutes later and reported smoke coming from the back door on and eaves of an abandoned AM/PM. A full alarm was called, and crews started to search for the source of the fire. As seen in this video, there was a significant fire event. The roof collapsed, and operations shifted to a defensive mode. At this time, crews are unable to enter the building to extinguish remaining hot spots, and excavators will be used to tear it down. Firefighters were on the roof when it collapsed, but they were uninjured, as was the individual seen in the video. This video highlights the dangers our crews face every time they battle a fire, and we are thankful that everyone is safe. The fire was caused by homeless activity.
0:14

🚨🚨2-ALARM FIRE Tucson Fire was dispatched to a call of fire nature unknown at 3:37 this afternoon in the 3100 block of East 22nd Street. Engine 3 arrived six minutes later and reported smoke coming from the back door on and eaves of an abandoned AM/PM. A full alarm was called, and crews started to search for the source of the fire. As seen in this video, there was a significant fire event. The roof collapsed, and operations shifted to a defensive mode. At this time, crews are unable to enter the building to extinguish remaining hot spots, and excavators will be used to tear it down. Firefighters were on the roof when it collapsed, but they were uninjured, as was the individual seen in the video. This video highlights the dangers our crews face every time they battle a fire, and we are thankful that everyone is safe. The fire was caused by homeless activity.

Tucson Fire Department

30,991 views • 1 year ago

“One of the most complicated hostage rescue missions in history.” The operation to rescue the hostages from Nusayrat was named "Summer Seeds" and is defined by the IDF as one of the most complex ever for hostage rescue. The hostages were held in a heavily civilian populated area, above ground, in buildings of 3-4 stories. The forces stormed the two separate targets where the hostages were held, with Noa held on the first floor and Andrey, Shlomi, and Almog on the third floor of another building, hundreds of meters apart. Hamas moved the four hostages from apartment to apartment, and the concern was that if the forces only stormed one building, the terrorists would escape with the hostages in the second building. The Air Force gathered intelligence from the air in the last few days, and the IDF and Shin Bet created conditions to reach the targets without the terrorists shooting the hostages first, which was key to the operation's success. The models built by the Yamam (Israel's counter-terrorism unit) reminded senior military officials of the models established for the Entebbe operation, with buildings, streets, and small areas for practice. The main problem was in the apartment where Andrey, Almog, and Shlomi were held, and where Yamam fighter Arnon Zamora was killed. The rescue took place under heavy fire, and during the disengagement, dozens of terrorists with RPGs and machine guns ran through the alleys towards the targets. As a result, uninvolved Gazan civilians were also killed in the dense fire exchange. The military said, "The difference between success and failure in such an operation is a hair's breadth, and we relied on exceptional technology from the Intelligence and Shin Bet. Without ground activity and maneuvering in the Gazan area, it would not have been possible to succeed in such operations." The IDF also noted that the rescue was made possible by Commander Zamora's heroism. "Shin Bet and Intelligence Directorate fighters entered the lion's den in the refugee camp and dismantled houses in areas where we hadn't maneuvered," they said. "This is bravery on the level of Judah Maccabee. The operation was planned for weeks with drills, rescue plans, and fires executed, alongside scenarios of cases and responses." The forces simultaneously broke into the two houses with special weapons developed for the operation. Immediately after extracting the hostages, the forces began to withdraw while fighting dozens of terrorists, but a vehicle with the three hostages got stuck and came under heavy fire. Division 98 forces jumped in to assist in the vehicle rescue battle, and rescue helicopters entered deep into the strip in daylight. Three brigades participated in the rescue battle, during which Zamora was also evacuated to the hospital: Brigade 7, Paratroopers, and Kfir with Flotilla 13, along with other special forces. "The fire plan that was executed was focused but extremely powerful," the IDF added. "The cooperation with Shin Bet and Yamam rose to several levels into a single operational system, under the direction of the Shin Bet chief and the Chief of Staff. Four keys to the operation: deception, surprise, determination, and power." To maintain the secrecy of the operation, thousands of soldiers in the brigades that participated in the rescue were unaware of the nature of the operation before it happened to preserve the element of surprise. Only a handful of commanders were exposed to the operation yesterday, at various levels. These forces were positioned at the correct launch points without revealing the secret. During the operation, soldiers were also lightly injured, mainly from shrapnel.
0:19

“One of the most complicated hostage rescue missions in history.” The operation to rescue the hostages from Nusayrat was named "Summer Seeds" and is defined by the IDF as one of the most complex ever for hostage rescue. The hostages were held in a heavily civilian populated area, above ground, in buildings of 3-4 stories. The forces stormed the two separate targets where the hostages were held, with Noa held on the first floor and Andrey, Shlomi, and Almog on the third floor of another building, hundreds of meters apart. Hamas moved the four hostages from apartment to apartment, and the concern was that if the forces only stormed one building, the terrorists would escape with the hostages in the second building. The Air Force gathered intelligence from the air in the last few days, and the IDF and Shin Bet created conditions to reach the targets without the terrorists shooting the hostages first, which was key to the operation's success. The models built by the Yamam (Israel's counter-terrorism unit) reminded senior military officials of the models established for the Entebbe operation, with buildings, streets, and small areas for practice. The main problem was in the apartment where Andrey, Almog, and Shlomi were held, and where Yamam fighter Arnon Zamora was killed. The rescue took place under heavy fire, and during the disengagement, dozens of terrorists with RPGs and machine guns ran through the alleys towards the targets. As a result, uninvolved Gazan civilians were also killed in the dense fire exchange. The military said, "The difference between success and failure in such an operation is a hair's breadth, and we relied on exceptional technology from the Intelligence and Shin Bet. Without ground activity and maneuvering in the Gazan area, it would not have been possible to succeed in such operations." The IDF also noted that the rescue was made possible by Commander Zamora's heroism. "Shin Bet and Intelligence Directorate fighters entered the lion's den in the refugee camp and dismantled houses in areas where we hadn't maneuvered," they said. "This is bravery on the level of Judah Maccabee. The operation was planned for weeks with drills, rescue plans, and fires executed, alongside scenarios of cases and responses." The forces simultaneously broke into the two houses with special weapons developed for the operation. Immediately after extracting the hostages, the forces began to withdraw while fighting dozens of terrorists, but a vehicle with the three hostages got stuck and came under heavy fire. Division 98 forces jumped in to assist in the vehicle rescue battle, and rescue helicopters entered deep into the strip in daylight. Three brigades participated in the rescue battle, during which Zamora was also evacuated to the hospital: Brigade 7, Paratroopers, and Kfir with Flotilla 13, along with other special forces. "The fire plan that was executed was focused but extremely powerful," the IDF added. "The cooperation with Shin Bet and Yamam rose to several levels into a single operational system, under the direction of the Shin Bet chief and the Chief of Staff. Four keys to the operation: deception, surprise, determination, and power." To maintain the secrecy of the operation, thousands of soldiers in the brigades that participated in the rescue were unaware of the nature of the operation before it happened to preserve the element of surprise. Only a handful of commanders were exposed to the operation yesterday, at various levels. These forces were positioned at the correct launch points without revealing the secret. During the operation, soldiers were also lightly injured, mainly from shrapnel.

Hen Mazzig

2,182,557 views • 2 years ago

Over 700 cars are lined up trying to leave occupied Crimea right now. A fuel depot near the Kerch Bridge is on fire. Three ferries are burning. The bridge was closed for hours and just reopened - to a two-hour wait for inspection. Ukraine struck the ferry crossing at Kerch Strait, an oil terminal at Chushka, and the ferry Panagia - the route Russia used to move trucks, fuel and military cargo after banning heavy vehicles from the bridge in 2022. Power outages followed overnight. The only land route left runs through Rostov-on-Don and Mariupol. Since early May, at least 415 trucks have been hit and six bridges damaged along it. Every alternative Russia built into this peninsula is closing, one strike at a time.
0:10

Over 700 cars are lined up trying to leave occupied Crimea right now. A fuel depot near the Kerch Bridge is on fire. Three ferries are burning. The bridge was closed for hours and just reopened - to a two-hour wait for inspection. Ukraine struck the ferry crossing at Kerch Strait, an oil terminal at Chushka, and the ferry Panagia - the route Russia used to move trucks, fuel and military cargo after banning heavy vehicles from the bridge in 2022. Power outages followed overnight. The only land route left runs through Rostov-on-Don and Mariupol. Since early May, at least 415 trucks have been hit and six bridges damaged along it. Every alternative Russia built into this peninsula is closing, one strike at a time.

Meanwhile in Ukraine

199,507 views • 1 month ago

As a graphics engine coder I think when you look at a flickering bug like this one in the video below it’s not immediately obvious what is going on. The key here is observation - to study this flickering/bugged render carefully - what do we see? Firstly for me it was very obvious that nearly all of the scene shadows were flashing on and off - but (but!) there was a secondary issue where some buildings and parts of the sky were also flashing purple. Hmmmm. Interesting. I initially thought then this might be two separate bugs - but because the sky purple element could only based on full screen post fx and not 3D rendering I looked at this first with a few GPU captures to step through all our post processing to find the rendering stage which made these pixels turn purple: When I did this I found the colour 3D texture LUT grading that makes our different biomes have unique colour palettes was going very wrong - colours near 0 or 1 were wrapping and making the purple elements that we see in the said sky and base parts. The only way this could happen was if the texture was corrupt (which it was not) or if the 3D texture sampling was wrapping and not clamped as intended. That was the Eureka moment - because if the post fx had the wrong texture sampler then the disappearing shadows which also require an exact texture sampler for comparing depth might be also wrong because of the same kind of texture sampling issue! So with this idea that the engine was using the wrong texture samplers, but only in very high draw call scenes like the big base here I the looked at some engine limits and found the bug very quickly - a circular dx12 descriptor buffer for samplers running out over multiple frames, reusing the wrong data for new scenes inflight. Hence the flickering, as the GPU randomly got wrong samplers for some post textures or shadow depth. Easy to fix with triple limits for future expansion and also adding an assert/debug spam in case this limit is ever reached again - QA testers would see this message and report if they ever saw a flicker with this style of bug. My bug and my bad from 2017 porting NMS to DX12 without foreseeing how massively complex bases and our game would grow.
0:14

As a graphics engine coder I think when you look at a flickering bug like this one in the video below it’s not immediately obvious what is going on. The key here is observation - to study this flickering/bugged render carefully - what do we see? Firstly for me it was very obvious that nearly all of the scene shadows were flashing on and off - but (but!) there was a secondary issue where some buildings and parts of the sky were also flashing purple. Hmmmm. Interesting. I initially thought then this might be two separate bugs - but because the sky purple element could only based on full screen post fx and not 3D rendering I looked at this first with a few GPU captures to step through all our post processing to find the rendering stage which made these pixels turn purple: When I did this I found the colour 3D texture LUT grading that makes our different biomes have unique colour palettes was going very wrong - colours near 0 or 1 were wrapping and making the purple elements that we see in the said sky and base parts. The only way this could happen was if the texture was corrupt (which it was not) or if the 3D texture sampling was wrapping and not clamped as intended. That was the Eureka moment - because if the post fx had the wrong texture sampler then the disappearing shadows which also require an exact texture sampler for comparing depth might be also wrong because of the same kind of texture sampling issue! So with this idea that the engine was using the wrong texture samplers, but only in very high draw call scenes like the big base here I the looked at some engine limits and found the bug very quickly - a circular dx12 descriptor buffer for samplers running out over multiple frames, reusing the wrong data for new scenes inflight. Hence the flickering, as the GPU randomly got wrong samplers for some post textures or shadow depth. Easy to fix with triple limits for future expansion and also adding an assert/debug spam in case this limit is ever reached again - QA testers would see this message and report if they ever saw a flicker with this style of bug. My bug and my bad from 2017 porting NMS to DX12 without foreseeing how massively complex bases and our game would grow.

Martin Griffiths

72,828 views • 1 year ago

Just before 12:30 Monday afternoon, the FDNY responded to a 4-alarm fire at 44-49 College Point Boulevard in Queens. Tragically, four people lost their lives in this fire. Two other victims were transported to area hospitals in critical condition. During operations, a stairwell collapsed, trapping two of our members. They were transported to area hospitals in stable condition. More than 230 firefighters and EMS personnel responded. “This is a difficult and tragic day. There were several victims in this fire. The Fire Department did an extraordinary job under difficult circumstances, putting this fire out and saving people. I can't thank them enough for their continued efforts and commitment to life safety,” said Fire Commissioner Lillian Bonsignore. “Upon arrival, we had heavy fire on all three floors of this building. There was a victim trapped on the second floor, which our members removed with a portable ladder. As our engine companies were moving in from the first floor and up the stairs to the second floor, the stairs collapsed, and those two members were trapped in the stairs. With additional help, we were able to extricate those members. As all that is happening, other members are performing CPR on the victims in the street,” said Chief of Fire Operations Kevin Woods. The fire was placed under control just before 2:45 p.m. FDNY Fire Marshals are working to determine the cause of the fire.
0:10

Just before 12:30 Monday afternoon, the FDNY responded to a 4-alarm fire at 44-49 College Point Boulevard in Queens. Tragically, four people lost their lives in this fire. Two other victims were transported to area hospitals in critical condition. During operations, a stairwell collapsed, trapping two of our members. They were transported to area hospitals in stable condition. More than 230 firefighters and EMS personnel responded. “This is a difficult and tragic day. There were several victims in this fire. The Fire Department did an extraordinary job under difficult circumstances, putting this fire out and saving people. I can't thank them enough for their continued efforts and commitment to life safety,” said Fire Commissioner Lillian Bonsignore. “Upon arrival, we had heavy fire on all three floors of this building. There was a victim trapped on the second floor, which our members removed with a portable ladder. As our engine companies were moving in from the first floor and up the stairs to the second floor, the stairs collapsed, and those two members were trapped in the stairs. With additional help, we were able to extricate those members. As all that is happening, other members are performing CPR on the victims in the street,” said Chief of Fire Operations Kevin Woods. The fire was placed under control just before 2:45 p.m. FDNY Fire Marshals are working to determine the cause of the fire.

FDNY

16,379 views • 4 months ago

UPDATE: Charlie Kirk 🚨 Muzzle Flash: Second Shooter Location, Reflection, or Both? This video captures a flash on a window right as Charlie Kirk was shot. Let’s break this down… follow the numbers on the videos. #1. This video shows what appears to be a muzzle flash, just as Charlie is shot, leading people to believe the shooter was to Charlie’s right.. Notate the people to the left of the flash #2. This photo shows the location of the flash. Notate people to the left, on a middle-landing on a staircase. #3. This photo shows a clearer image showing both the middle-landing and the same location of the flash. It is a window. #4 . This video shows the building behind Charlie, which is a long hallway. This debunks any claims the shot came from here. — I zoom in where Charlie was — I zoom in on staircase — I zoom in on the window/flash — I zoom in on where suspected shooter was #5. I notate the flash reflection angles. — Video angle #1 notated — two reflection paths notated in relation to Video angle #1. 1. Reflection angle shows where we were told the shooter was. 2. Reflection angle shows mirrored angle, obviously where there is no reports of a shooter being in. 🔻 Final conclusion: This to me is very likely a muzzle flash reflection from a far off location. I am unsure of the reflection angle however, but this can be 100% proven if someone were to recreate the angles… maybe with a flash camera. If anyone is willing to, or has the means to do this (safely), this will either prove the shot came where the FBI said it came from, or it will prove there was a second shooter, in the direction of the mirrored angle.
0:16

UPDATE: Charlie Kirk 🚨 Muzzle Flash: Second Shooter Location, Reflection, or Both? This video captures a flash on a window right as Charlie Kirk was shot. Let’s break this down… follow the numbers on the videos. #1. This video shows what appears to be a muzzle flash, just as Charlie is shot, leading people to believe the shooter was to Charlie’s right.. Notate the people to the left of the flash #2. This photo shows the location of the flash. Notate people to the left, on a middle-landing on a staircase. #3. This photo shows a clearer image showing both the middle-landing and the same location of the flash. It is a window. #4 . This video shows the building behind Charlie, which is a long hallway. This debunks any claims the shot came from here. — I zoom in where Charlie was — I zoom in on staircase — I zoom in on the window/flash — I zoom in on where suspected shooter was #5. I notate the flash reflection angles. — Video angle #1 notated — two reflection paths notated in relation to Video angle #1. 1. Reflection angle shows where we were told the shooter was. 2. Reflection angle shows mirrored angle, obviously where there is no reports of a shooter being in. 🔻 Final conclusion: This to me is very likely a muzzle flash reflection from a far off location. I am unsure of the reflection angle however, but this can be 100% proven if someone were to recreate the angles… maybe with a flash camera. If anyone is willing to, or has the means to do this (safely), this will either prove the shot came where the FBI said it came from, or it will prove there was a second shooter, in the direction of the mirrored angle.

MJTruthUltra

10,665,164 views • 10 months ago

Breaking down what happened on China Airlines flight CI063 (Taipei to Vienna) on January 14, 2026... During takeoff from Taoyuan Airport, a tire tread from the main landing gear separated... a known occurrence with aircraft tires under high stress. The debris was flung upward and impacted the right wing, causing visible damage to the flaps and spoilers (no penetration to fuel tanks or critical structures). The passenger seated a Lufthansa aviation engineer, heard unusual sounds shortly after takeoff (around the time reaching Hong Kong airspace) and alerted the cabin crew. Initially told it might be normal, he persisted. When another pax overheard, he turned around, learned what was going on, and lent him his phone so he could show the crew takeoff video clearly showing the fresh damage. The assessment process took considerable time.. the crew consulted with the flight deck, maintenance teams on the ground, and dispatch while the engineer received periodic updates. With no critical warnings in the cockpit but visible structural damage confirmed, the captain elected to dump fuel and return to Taipei for safety. Aircraft landed without incident about two hours after departure. All passengers and crew were safe, and everyone was re-accommodated on later flights. Ground inspections later verified tire tread separation as the cause. The aircraft (B-18007, an A350-900) was removed from service for repairs, and Taiwan’s Civil Aeronautics Administration is investigating. The cautious decision to return was absolutely the right call, and the quick actions of an alert passenger plus thorough crew procedures prevented any risk from escalating. Aviation safety is layered for a reason. how much should passenger observations factor into in-flight decisions? Ever spoken up about something you noticed on a plane? Curious to hear experiences. ✈️ (Video from Pax seat attached... )
0:15

Breaking down what happened on China Airlines flight CI063 (Taipei to Vienna) on January 14, 2026... During takeoff from Taoyuan Airport, a tire tread from the main landing gear separated... a known occurrence with aircraft tires under high stress. The debris was flung upward and impacted the right wing, causing visible damage to the flaps and spoilers (no penetration to fuel tanks or critical structures). The passenger seated a Lufthansa aviation engineer, heard unusual sounds shortly after takeoff (around the time reaching Hong Kong airspace) and alerted the cabin crew. Initially told it might be normal, he persisted. When another pax overheard, he turned around, learned what was going on, and lent him his phone so he could show the crew takeoff video clearly showing the fresh damage. The assessment process took considerable time.. the crew consulted with the flight deck, maintenance teams on the ground, and dispatch while the engineer received periodic updates. With no critical warnings in the cockpit but visible structural damage confirmed, the captain elected to dump fuel and return to Taipei for safety. Aircraft landed without incident about two hours after departure. All passengers and crew were safe, and everyone was re-accommodated on later flights. Ground inspections later verified tire tread separation as the cause. The aircraft (B-18007, an A350-900) was removed from service for repairs, and Taiwan’s Civil Aeronautics Administration is investigating. The cautious decision to return was absolutely the right call, and the quick actions of an alert passenger plus thorough crew procedures prevented any risk from escalating. Aviation safety is layered for a reason. how much should passenger observations factor into in-flight decisions? Ever spoken up about something you noticed on a plane? Curious to hear experiences. ✈️ (Video from Pax seat attached... )

Fahad Naim

244,576 views • 6 months ago

What is the RAT? The RAT is a small wind turbine stowed within the aircraft fuselage and deployed automatically when certain failure conditions are met. Once extended into the airstream, it uses the forward motion of the aircraft to spin and generate power—mechanical, hydraulic, or electrical. Primary Functions of the RAT on the 787-8 1. Hydraulic Backup Power On deployment, the RAT drives a variable displacement inline hydraulic pump. It pressurizes the center hydraulic system, enabling continued operation of critical flight control surfaces such as the ailerons, elevators, and rudder. This is vital in maintaining aircraft controllability if normal hydraulic sources are lost. 2. Supplementary Electrical Power While the RAT is primarily a hydraulic power source on the 787-8, it can also, in some configurations, drive an emergency generator. This generator provides sufficient AC and DC power to support essential avionics, flight displays, and communications systems. Deployment Scenarios: When Does the RAT Automatically Deploy? The RAT on the Boeing 787-8 deploys automatically—without crew input—under the following emergency conditions: 1. Dual Engine Failure If both engines fail, resulting in the loss of engine-driven electrical and hydraulic generation, the RAT deploys to maintain critical flight control power. 2. Complete Electrical Loss to Flight Instruments If there’s a total loss of electrical power to both the captain’s and first officer’s primary flight instruments, the RAT ensures these systems remain powered. 3. Low Pressure in All Three Hydraulic Systems If all three systems—Left, Center, and Right—lose hydraulic pressure, the RAT provides emergency hydraulic power through the center system. 4. EMP Failure + Engine Loss During Takeoff or Landing If all four Electric Motor Pumps (EMPs) fail and an engine fails during takeoff or landing, the RAT deploys to sustain flight control power during these critical phases. Automatic and Autonomous Operation One of the RAT’s key advantages is its fully autonomous activation. Pilots do not need to manually deploy it; the system is designed to react immediately to predefined failure logic, reducing workload and ensuring flight-critical systems remain powered. In Summary The Ram Air Turbine (RAT) on the Boeing 787-8 is not just a backup—it's a lifesaving last resort. It deploys automatically to supply hydraulic and limited electrical power when all other power sources fail. Designed with layered redundancy in mind, it is one of the unsung heroes of modern aircraft systems, ensuring that even in worst-case scenarios, pilots retain control to guide the aircraft—and its passengers—safely to the ground.
0:14

What is the RAT? The RAT is a small wind turbine stowed within the aircraft fuselage and deployed automatically when certain failure conditions are met. Once extended into the airstream, it uses the forward motion of the aircraft to spin and generate power—mechanical, hydraulic, or electrical. Primary Functions of the RAT on the 787-8 1. Hydraulic Backup Power On deployment, the RAT drives a variable displacement inline hydraulic pump. It pressurizes the center hydraulic system, enabling continued operation of critical flight control surfaces such as the ailerons, elevators, and rudder. This is vital in maintaining aircraft controllability if normal hydraulic sources are lost. 2. Supplementary Electrical Power While the RAT is primarily a hydraulic power source on the 787-8, it can also, in some configurations, drive an emergency generator. This generator provides sufficient AC and DC power to support essential avionics, flight displays, and communications systems. Deployment Scenarios: When Does the RAT Automatically Deploy? The RAT on the Boeing 787-8 deploys automatically—without crew input—under the following emergency conditions: 1. Dual Engine Failure If both engines fail, resulting in the loss of engine-driven electrical and hydraulic generation, the RAT deploys to maintain critical flight control power. 2. Complete Electrical Loss to Flight Instruments If there’s a total loss of electrical power to both the captain’s and first officer’s primary flight instruments, the RAT ensures these systems remain powered. 3. Low Pressure in All Three Hydraulic Systems If all three systems—Left, Center, and Right—lose hydraulic pressure, the RAT provides emergency hydraulic power through the center system. 4. EMP Failure + Engine Loss During Takeoff or Landing If all four Electric Motor Pumps (EMPs) fail and an engine fails during takeoff or landing, the RAT deploys to sustain flight control power during these critical phases. Automatic and Autonomous Operation One of the RAT’s key advantages is its fully autonomous activation. Pilots do not need to manually deploy it; the system is designed to react immediately to predefined failure logic, reducing workload and ensuring flight-critical systems remain powered. In Summary The Ram Air Turbine (RAT) on the Boeing 787-8 is not just a backup—it's a lifesaving last resort. It deploys automatically to supply hydraulic and limited electrical power when all other power sources fail. Designed with layered redundancy in mind, it is one of the unsung heroes of modern aircraft systems, ensuring that even in worst-case scenarios, pilots retain control to guide the aircraft—and its passengers—safely to the ground.

Turbine Traveller

293,307 views • 1 year ago

4th Kōkūtai Mitsubishi G4M1 "Betty" missing its port engine falls into the sea just short of USS Lexington on February 20th 1942 during the action off Bougainville This was a naval and air engagement in the South Pacific Theater of World War II near Bougainville, Papua New Guinea where a United States Navy aircraft carrier task force centered around USS Lexington on its way to raid the Imperial Japanese military base at Rabaul was attacked by a force of land-based bombers of the Imperial Japanese Navy. In the ensuing engagement, the Japanese air group lost 15 of 17 bombers sent to attack the American carrier group. The United States lost only two fighters in defense, and no ships were damaged. As a result of the loss of surprise, however, the Americans retired without raiding Rabaul as originally planned. The aircraft visible in the clip is a G4M1 of 4th Kōkūtai's 1st Chûtai commanded by Lieutenant Commander Takuzo Ito, the group's commanding officer. Together with seven other "Betties" his formation was attacked by two Wildcats, flown by Lieutenant Edward "Butch" O'Hare and Lieutenant (junior grade) Marion Dufilho. During the first pass, Dufilho's guns jammed, leaving O'Hare to attack the bombers alone. O'Hare employed a high-side diving attack from the right side of the formation, accurately placing bursts of gunfire into the outside "Betty"'s right engine and wing fuel tanks. When the stricken craft, commanded by Petty Officer 2nd Class Ryosuke Kogiku (3rd Shotai), lurched to starboard, O'Hare switched to the next plane up the line, that of Petty Officer 1st Class Koji Maeda (3rd Shotai leader). Maeda's plane caught fire, but his crew managed to put out the flames with "one single spurt of liquid...from the fire-extinguisher." Neither Maeda or Kogiku had sustained fatal damage, and would catch up with the group before bomb release. With two "Bettys" knocked out of formation, albeit temporarily, O'Hare initiated another firing pass, this time from the left side. His first target was the outside plane, flown by Petty Officer 1st Class Bin Mori (2nd Shotai). Aiming across to the far side of Mori's bomber, O'Hare's bullets damaged the right engine and left fuel tank, forcing Mori to dump his bombs and abort his mission. With Mori out of combat, O'Hare next targeted Ito's senior wingman, Petty Officer 1st Class Susumu Uchiyama (1st Shotai), whose plane did not recover from its dive. Having shot up four bombers, O'Hare returned to the left side for a third firing pass. By now, Ito was nearing the bomb release point, which left very little time to take action. The first plane to go down was Ito's deputy, Lieutenant (junior grade) Akira Mitani (2nd Shotai leader). Mitani's departure left Ito's command plane exposed, and O'Hare opened up on it. O'Hare's concentrated fire caused the plane's port engine nacelle to break free of the wing. The resulting explosion was so violent that the 1st Chûtai pilots were convinced that an AA burst had struck their commander's plane. With a gaping hole in its left wing, Ito's plane fell out of formation. As the surviving "Bettys" withdrew, Ito's command pilot, Warrant Officer Chuzo Watanabe, managed to regain enough control to level his plane. He tried to steer his damaged plane into Lexington, but missed and flew into the water near the carrier at 17:12. Maeda, witnessing the event, believed that both Ito and Mitani (who had gone down moments earlier) had crashed "bombs, crew and all" into the carrier. The crippled plane is seen barely remaining airborne while flying on one engine and does not survive the concentrated anti-aircraft fire coming from the carrier.
0:13

4th Kōkūtai Mitsubishi G4M1 "Betty" missing its port engine falls into the sea just short of USS Lexington on February 20th 1942 during the action off Bougainville This was a naval and air engagement in the South Pacific Theater of World War II near Bougainville, Papua New Guinea where a United States Navy aircraft carrier task force centered around USS Lexington on its way to raid the Imperial Japanese military base at Rabaul was attacked by a force of land-based bombers of the Imperial Japanese Navy. In the ensuing engagement, the Japanese air group lost 15 of 17 bombers sent to attack the American carrier group. The United States lost only two fighters in defense, and no ships were damaged. As a result of the loss of surprise, however, the Americans retired without raiding Rabaul as originally planned. The aircraft visible in the clip is a G4M1 of 4th Kōkūtai's 1st Chûtai commanded by Lieutenant Commander Takuzo Ito, the group's commanding officer. Together with seven other "Betties" his formation was attacked by two Wildcats, flown by Lieutenant Edward "Butch" O'Hare and Lieutenant (junior grade) Marion Dufilho. During the first pass, Dufilho's guns jammed, leaving O'Hare to attack the bombers alone. O'Hare employed a high-side diving attack from the right side of the formation, accurately placing bursts of gunfire into the outside "Betty"'s right engine and wing fuel tanks. When the stricken craft, commanded by Petty Officer 2nd Class Ryosuke Kogiku (3rd Shotai), lurched to starboard, O'Hare switched to the next plane up the line, that of Petty Officer 1st Class Koji Maeda (3rd Shotai leader). Maeda's plane caught fire, but his crew managed to put out the flames with "one single spurt of liquid...from the fire-extinguisher." Neither Maeda or Kogiku had sustained fatal damage, and would catch up with the group before bomb release. With two "Bettys" knocked out of formation, albeit temporarily, O'Hare initiated another firing pass, this time from the left side. His first target was the outside plane, flown by Petty Officer 1st Class Bin Mori (2nd Shotai). Aiming across to the far side of Mori's bomber, O'Hare's bullets damaged the right engine and left fuel tank, forcing Mori to dump his bombs and abort his mission. With Mori out of combat, O'Hare next targeted Ito's senior wingman, Petty Officer 1st Class Susumu Uchiyama (1st Shotai), whose plane did not recover from its dive. Having shot up four bombers, O'Hare returned to the left side for a third firing pass. By now, Ito was nearing the bomb release point, which left very little time to take action. The first plane to go down was Ito's deputy, Lieutenant (junior grade) Akira Mitani (2nd Shotai leader). Mitani's departure left Ito's command plane exposed, and O'Hare opened up on it. O'Hare's concentrated fire caused the plane's port engine nacelle to break free of the wing. The resulting explosion was so violent that the 1st Chûtai pilots were convinced that an AA burst had struck their commander's plane. With a gaping hole in its left wing, Ito's plane fell out of formation. As the surviving "Bettys" withdrew, Ito's command pilot, Warrant Officer Chuzo Watanabe, managed to regain enough control to level his plane. He tried to steer his damaged plane into Lexington, but missed and flew into the water near the carrier at 17:12. Maeda, witnessing the event, believed that both Ito and Mitani (who had gone down moments earlier) had crashed "bombs, crew and all" into the carrier. The crippled plane is seen barely remaining airborne while flying on one engine and does not survive the concentrated anti-aircraft fire coming from the carrier.

hw97karbine

59,788 views • 1 year ago

WATCH THIS VIDEO CAREFULLY. FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF A VIDEO CURRENTLY BEING CIRCULATED AND SPREAD ON ARAB TELEGRAM CHANNELS (Mor Edge Insight in conjunction with GAZAWOOD - The Pallywood Saga - BACKUP - July 6) What you are about to see is raw footage of an active arrest operation and genuine footage. This clip is currently circulating on Palestinian Telegram channels and is being prepared for wider distribution on X. It follows a familiar pattern of real footage with heavy manipulation and inauthentic audio to create a perception and narrative that doesn’t exist and is not what the footage actually shows. Here is the step-by-step forensic breakdown. The audio track contains multiple sharp “gunshots.” However, frame-by-frame examination shows no muzzle flashes at any point, even in bright daylight where unsuppressed firearms would produce clear, visible bursts. There is also no visible recoil or weapon movement on the individuals holding rifles. The barrels show no suppressors, yet the sounds are relatively clean “pops” rather than the overwhelming cracks expected from unsuppressed fire at that range. The audio of the shots fired are more reminiscent of a children’s toy than a real gunshot. More critically, the visual action is happening at a clear distance across the road, at a distance of an estimated 60-100m away from the camera, yet the gunshots and shouting sound as if recorded right next to the camera. Real distant gunfire would be thinner, more muffled, and accompanied by environmental echoes. This audio was added in post-production. How distance was determined: The white car in the immediate foreground (partially visible on the left) is only 5–10 meters away. The road width and the position of the parked vehicles and people with guns put the core action clearly in the mid-ground, across the full width of the street and shoulder. Reference objects: Standard car lengths (4.5–5m), average adult height (1.7m), and the spacing of streetlights/power poles all support a distance in that 60–100 meter range for the shooters and the SUV. The black SUV drives a noticeable distance across the frame without appearing overly large or close, further confirming it’s not right next to the camera. This distance makes the audio mismatch even more obvious. Real gunfire at 60–100 meters would sound significantly more distant and muted, with clear delay and environmental filtering. The overlaid “cracks” sound like they were recorded (or synthesized) much closer. Summary 1. Real gunshots, especially in an open outdoor environment like this, produce a sharp initial crack (supersonic bullet) followed by a broader report/echo, with significant low-frequency rumble, reverberation off the ground/cars/objects, and environmental decay. These sound more like clean “pop/crack” samples layered on top. 2. They lack the natural variations in volume, timing, or distortion you’d expect from actual firearms in a real chaotic scene (muzzle blast, echoes, distance differences) even with silencers which from that distance you wouldn’t even hear. They feel “pasted in” during editing. 3. The overall audio mix (ambient road noise, car sounds, voices) doesn’t interact naturally with the “shots”, there is no proper masking, reverb bleed, or mic overload you’d get from real loud events captured on the same recording device. Always examine the audio against the visuals, check for continuity errors, and watch how people actually behave when they think no one is watching the performance. Share if you value this kind of detailed verification.
0:12

WATCH THIS VIDEO CAREFULLY. FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF A VIDEO CURRENTLY BEING CIRCULATED AND SPREAD ON ARAB TELEGRAM CHANNELS (Mor Edge Insight in conjunction with GAZAWOOD - The Pallywood Saga - BACKUP - July 6) What you are about to see is raw footage of an active arrest operation and genuine footage. This clip is currently circulating on Palestinian Telegram channels and is being prepared for wider distribution on X. It follows a familiar pattern of real footage with heavy manipulation and inauthentic audio to create a perception and narrative that doesn’t exist and is not what the footage actually shows. Here is the step-by-step forensic breakdown. The audio track contains multiple sharp “gunshots.” However, frame-by-frame examination shows no muzzle flashes at any point, even in bright daylight where unsuppressed firearms would produce clear, visible bursts. There is also no visible recoil or weapon movement on the individuals holding rifles. The barrels show no suppressors, yet the sounds are relatively clean “pops” rather than the overwhelming cracks expected from unsuppressed fire at that range. The audio of the shots fired are more reminiscent of a children’s toy than a real gunshot. More critically, the visual action is happening at a clear distance across the road, at a distance of an estimated 60-100m away from the camera, yet the gunshots and shouting sound as if recorded right next to the camera. Real distant gunfire would be thinner, more muffled, and accompanied by environmental echoes. This audio was added in post-production. How distance was determined: The white car in the immediate foreground (partially visible on the left) is only 5–10 meters away. The road width and the position of the parked vehicles and people with guns put the core action clearly in the mid-ground, across the full width of the street and shoulder. Reference objects: Standard car lengths (4.5–5m), average adult height (1.7m), and the spacing of streetlights/power poles all support a distance in that 60–100 meter range for the shooters and the SUV. The black SUV drives a noticeable distance across the frame without appearing overly large or close, further confirming it’s not right next to the camera. This distance makes the audio mismatch even more obvious. Real gunfire at 60–100 meters would sound significantly more distant and muted, with clear delay and environmental filtering. The overlaid “cracks” sound like they were recorded (or synthesized) much closer. Summary 1. Real gunshots, especially in an open outdoor environment like this, produce a sharp initial crack (supersonic bullet) followed by a broader report/echo, with significant low-frequency rumble, reverberation off the ground/cars/objects, and environmental decay. These sound more like clean “pop/crack” samples layered on top. 2. They lack the natural variations in volume, timing, or distortion you’d expect from actual firearms in a real chaotic scene (muzzle blast, echoes, distance differences) even with silencers which from that distance you wouldn’t even hear. They feel “pasted in” during editing. 3. The overall audio mix (ambient road noise, car sounds, voices) doesn’t interact naturally with the “shots”, there is no proper masking, reverb bleed, or mic overload you’d get from real loud events captured on the same recording device. Always examine the audio against the visuals, check for continuity errors, and watch how people actually behave when they think no one is watching the performance. Share if you value this kind of detailed verification.

Mor Edge Insight

23,394 views • 1 month ago

The genial sanctions! For those who said that factories like the Chinese ones exist in the West, no, they don't. The Chinese are using full-cycle automation in factories that even lack basic lighting. And this is working for cars as well as for missiles, as I have shown here before. Now comes the most interesting part. A large portion of the automation machinery is still European, but this dependence has been decreasing, and today it’s less than 40%. The West used to dominate the market for Chinese chips, industrial machinery, aviation, and various other sectors. What was the big idea? Impose sanctions on the Chinese and force them to develop all these technologies so they no longer need to buy from the West. Genius, don’t you think? Today, the Chinese are developing four commercial aviation engines simultaneously, with at least one already flying in testing phase, and three other engine projects for cargo aviation based on Russian models. This was a market that was entirely owned by the West. Another issue that will need to be addressed sooner or later is whether there will be tariffs on products coming from fully roboticized factories. Some might say this is punishing efficiency. But what’s the point of efficiency if no one has a job and can spend? An extremely efficient model that creates unemployment beyond its borders? Obviously, this will be discussed at some point.
0:14

The genial sanctions! For those who said that factories like the Chinese ones exist in the West, no, they don't. The Chinese are using full-cycle automation in factories that even lack basic lighting. And this is working for cars as well as for missiles, as I have shown here before. Now comes the most interesting part. A large portion of the automation machinery is still European, but this dependence has been decreasing, and today it’s less than 40%. The West used to dominate the market for Chinese chips, industrial machinery, aviation, and various other sectors. What was the big idea? Impose sanctions on the Chinese and force them to develop all these technologies so they no longer need to buy from the West. Genius, don’t you think? Today, the Chinese are developing four commercial aviation engines simultaneously, with at least one already flying in testing phase, and three other engine projects for cargo aviation based on Russian models. This was a market that was entirely owned by the West. Another issue that will need to be addressed sooner or later is whether there will be tariffs on products coming from fully roboticized factories. Some might say this is punishing efficiency. But what’s the point of efficiency if no one has a job and can spend? An extremely efficient model that creates unemployment beyond its borders? Obviously, this will be discussed at some point.

Patricia Marins

57,759 views • 9 months ago

NEWS: SpaceX has released a statement after today's successful 11th Starship test flight. "Every major objective of the flight test was achieved, providing valuable data as we prepare the next generation of Starship and Super Heavy. The flight test began with Super Heavy igniting all 33 Raptor engines and ascending over the Gulf. The successful first-stage ascent was followed by a hot-staging maneuver, with Starship’s upper stage igniting its six Raptor engines to continue its flight to space. Following stage separation, the Super Heavy booster completed its boostback burn to put it on a course to a pre-planned splashdown zone off the coast of Texas using 12 of the 13 planned engines. Under the same angle of attack tested on the previous flight, the booster descended until successfully igniting all 13 planned engines (including one that did not relight during the boostback burn) for the high-thrust portion of the landing burn. The booster successfully executed a unique landing burn planned for use on the next generation booster. Super Heavy hovered above the water before shutting down its engines and splashing down. After completing a full-duration ascent burn, Starship achieved its planned velocity and trajectory. During flight, Starship successfully deployed eight Starlink simulators and executed the third in-space relight of a Raptor engine, demonstrating a critical capability for future deorbit burns. Starship re-entered the Earth’s atmosphere and was able to gather extensive data on the performance of its heatshield as it was intentionally stressed to test the limits of the vehicle’s capabilities. In the final minutes of flight, Starship performed a dynamic banking maneuver to mimic the trajectory that future missions returning to Starbase will fly. Starship then guided itself using its four flaps to the pre-planned splashdown zone in the Indian Ocean, successfully executing a landing flip, landing burn, and soft splashdown. Focus now turns to the next generation of Starship and Super Heavy, with multiple vehicles currently in active build and preparing for tests. This next iteration will be used for the first Starship orbital flights, operational payload missions, propellant transfer, and more as we iterate to a fully and rapidly reusable vehicle with service to Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars, and beyond."
0:15

NEWS: SpaceX has released a statement after today's successful 11th Starship test flight. "Every major objective of the flight test was achieved, providing valuable data as we prepare the next generation of Starship and Super Heavy. The flight test began with Super Heavy igniting all 33 Raptor engines and ascending over the Gulf. The successful first-stage ascent was followed by a hot-staging maneuver, with Starship’s upper stage igniting its six Raptor engines to continue its flight to space. Following stage separation, the Super Heavy booster completed its boostback burn to put it on a course to a pre-planned splashdown zone off the coast of Texas using 12 of the 13 planned engines. Under the same angle of attack tested on the previous flight, the booster descended until successfully igniting all 13 planned engines (including one that did not relight during the boostback burn) for the high-thrust portion of the landing burn. The booster successfully executed a unique landing burn planned for use on the next generation booster. Super Heavy hovered above the water before shutting down its engines and splashing down. After completing a full-duration ascent burn, Starship achieved its planned velocity and trajectory. During flight, Starship successfully deployed eight Starlink simulators and executed the third in-space relight of a Raptor engine, demonstrating a critical capability for future deorbit burns. Starship re-entered the Earth’s atmosphere and was able to gather extensive data on the performance of its heatshield as it was intentionally stressed to test the limits of the vehicle’s capabilities. In the final minutes of flight, Starship performed a dynamic banking maneuver to mimic the trajectory that future missions returning to Starbase will fly. Starship then guided itself using its four flaps to the pre-planned splashdown zone in the Indian Ocean, successfully executing a landing flip, landing burn, and soft splashdown. Focus now turns to the next generation of Starship and Super Heavy, with multiple vehicles currently in active build and preparing for tests. This next iteration will be used for the first Starship orbital flights, operational payload missions, propellant transfer, and more as we iterate to a fully and rapidly reusable vehicle with service to Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars, and beyond."

Sawyer Merritt

273,302 views • 10 months ago

💥 The Chinese authorities have known for 4 years that a pilot of a China Eastern Airlines jet — flight MU5735 — deliberately crashed the aircraft, killing all 132 aboard, according to data from the US. The data, released by the 🇺🇸 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), confirms earlier leaked US accounts that Flight 5735, a Boeing 737, was intentionally crashed into mountains in Guangxi in Mar 2022. The NTSB readings from the flight recorders show two pilots wrestling over the controls after both engines were shut down by hand, the automatic pilot was switched off and the jet was pushed into a nosedive as it cruised between Kunming and Guangzhou. In the face of public anger, Beijing has failed to publish a report. Last July the Chinese Civil Aviation Administration responded to an inquiry with a warning that “disclosure [about the crash] may, if released, endanger national security and social stability”. Beijing is under pressure from international aviation organizations to come clean over the disaster, which appears to have followed a similar pattern to suspected murder-suicide acts by airline pilots that have killed hundreds since 2014. The NTSB was asked to decode the flight recorders of Flight 5735 and transmitted its readings to China two weeks after their recovery in 2022. The US agency released extracts from its findings on Thursday in response to a Chinese citizen’s freedom of information request. “It was found that while cruising at 29,000ft, the fuel switches on both engines moved from the run position to the cut-off position,” the NTSB said. “Engine speeds decreased after the fuel switch movement.” Graphs of control inputs and the aircraft’s movement showed a pilot’s yoke pushing the aircraft into a steep dive and efforts by the other pilot to halt the dive. The two pilots were turning their yokes in opposite directions, commanding left or right rolls from the ailerons on the edges of the wings. The report said that a power failure had halted the data recorder after 90 seconds but the battery-powered crew voice recorder had continued. The agency did not reveal the contents, which it transmitted to Beijing at the time and said it had not stored a copy. Video from the ground showed the Boeing plunging vertically. The crew made no radio calls and no emergency radar code was transmitted. Previous Chinese reports have said that all systems appeared to have been functioning normally. Two months after the crash, a US investigator said “the plane did what it was told to do by someone in the cockpit”. China removed all references to that report, including screenshots, from social media. Three pilots were on the flight deck. Captain Yang Hongda, Zhang Zhengping, the first officer, and Ni Gongtao, a second officer in training. Speculation in China has centred on Zhang, one of the airline’s most experienced pilots, who had recently been demoted from his captain’s rank.
0:14

💥 The Chinese authorities have known for 4 years that a pilot of a China Eastern Airlines jet — flight MU5735 — deliberately crashed the aircraft, killing all 132 aboard, according to data from the US. The data, released by the 🇺🇸 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), confirms earlier leaked US accounts that Flight 5735, a Boeing 737, was intentionally crashed into mountains in Guangxi in Mar 2022. The NTSB readings from the flight recorders show two pilots wrestling over the controls after both engines were shut down by hand, the automatic pilot was switched off and the jet was pushed into a nosedive as it cruised between Kunming and Guangzhou. In the face of public anger, Beijing has failed to publish a report. Last July the Chinese Civil Aviation Administration responded to an inquiry with a warning that “disclosure [about the crash] may, if released, endanger national security and social stability”. Beijing is under pressure from international aviation organizations to come clean over the disaster, which appears to have followed a similar pattern to suspected murder-suicide acts by airline pilots that have killed hundreds since 2014. The NTSB was asked to decode the flight recorders of Flight 5735 and transmitted its readings to China two weeks after their recovery in 2022. The US agency released extracts from its findings on Thursday in response to a Chinese citizen’s freedom of information request. “It was found that while cruising at 29,000ft, the fuel switches on both engines moved from the run position to the cut-off position,” the NTSB said. “Engine speeds decreased after the fuel switch movement.” Graphs of control inputs and the aircraft’s movement showed a pilot’s yoke pushing the aircraft into a steep dive and efforts by the other pilot to halt the dive. The two pilots were turning their yokes in opposite directions, commanding left or right rolls from the ailerons on the edges of the wings. The report said that a power failure had halted the data recorder after 90 seconds but the battery-powered crew voice recorder had continued. The agency did not reveal the contents, which it transmitted to Beijing at the time and said it had not stored a copy. Video from the ground showed the Boeing plunging vertically. The crew made no radio calls and no emergency radar code was transmitted. Previous Chinese reports have said that all systems appeared to have been functioning normally. Two months after the crash, a US investigator said “the plane did what it was told to do by someone in the cockpit”. China removed all references to that report, including screenshots, from social media. Three pilots were on the flight deck. Captain Yang Hongda, Zhang Zhengping, the first officer, and Ni Gongtao, a second officer in training. Speculation in China has centred on Zhang, one of the airline’s most experienced pilots, who had recently been demoted from his captain’s rank.

Byron Wan

348,300 views • 3 months ago

On the 16th of March 2025, Earshot was contacted by activists in Serbia to investigate the potential use of sonic weapons by the government on a crowd of protestors as they were holding a silent vigil for the victims of the Novi Sad railway station canopy collapse. Earshot received 12 videos that document the moments where a weapon was allegedly used against the protestors. 4 of these videos contain a sound consistent with the noise produced by a Vortex Ring Gun or Vortex Cannon. As this weapon pushes gas out of its cylinder at speeds of 185mph, its expulsion produces a howling noise which has been compared to a jet engine, along with vortex rings that may be ionized. This would create electromagnetic interference with devices such as hearing aids, corroborating reports made by witnesses at the protest. Should this be the vortex cannon, these recordings would be more than 700m away. At this distance the combustion of the weapon is no longer audible; only the distinct whistling sound of the pressure wave as it travels away from the shooter location and towards the crowd can be heard, causing mass panic. As Earshot is looking to further investigate this incident, we ask anyone with video footage from that night that captures the specific sound that can be heard in this post to get in touch with us.
0:19

On the 16th of March 2025, Earshot was contacted by activists in Serbia to investigate the potential use of sonic weapons by the government on a crowd of protestors as they were holding a silent vigil for the victims of the Novi Sad railway station canopy collapse. Earshot received 12 videos that document the moments where a weapon was allegedly used against the protestors. 4 of these videos contain a sound consistent with the noise produced by a Vortex Ring Gun or Vortex Cannon. As this weapon pushes gas out of its cylinder at speeds of 185mph, its expulsion produces a howling noise which has been compared to a jet engine, along with vortex rings that may be ionized. This would create electromagnetic interference with devices such as hearing aids, corroborating reports made by witnesses at the protest. Should this be the vortex cannon, these recordings would be more than 700m away. At this distance the combustion of the weapon is no longer audible; only the distinct whistling sound of the pressure wave as it travels away from the shooter location and towards the crowd can be heard, causing mass panic. As Earshot is looking to further investigate this incident, we ask anyone with video footage from that night that captures the specific sound that can be heard in this post to get in touch with us.

earshot.ngo

825,115 views • 1 year ago