Congratulations! Your comment on Pilot Makes Emergency Landing on Busy Highway has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

During my flight training, I was always taught that a highway or paved road was the last place to land in an emergency. For one, power lines tend to cross paved roads and by the time you can see them, it's too late to avoid them. Another is that it endangers others on the ground. Many pilots lose their lives trying to save the plane in an emergency. The best advice I got during my training was that when the plane quits on you, it's now your life boat. Use it to save your life, don't risk yours to save it.

During my flight training I also worked at a small GA airport. I got to know a lot of the pilots there. One owned a construction company and would often fly over his construction sites to survey them from the air. He came out that morning, I filled up his plane and he never returned. I didn't think much of it, although he rented a hangar from us, he also had a private air strip too.

A few days later, I found out that he was killed making an emergency landing. While flying over the construction site, his engine quit and he tried to land on a road. A car pulled out from a side street and he pulled up to avoid it. The landing gear snagged a power line, which caused it to nose dive into the ground and rupture the fuel tanks. It caught fire, and people tried to get to him to pull him out. They said he appeared to be alive and trying to get out, but the fire spread too fast.

The way I found out was a bit shocking. Investigators from the NTSB showed up to review our fuel and maintenance logs. We have to perform daily tests on the fuel and equipment, and I was the one that did those tests the day he was killed. It wasn't the fuel that caused the engine to quit, but that thought that maybe I screwed up the test and caused it and knowing he probably burned alive haunted me. That's something I'll never forget.

Your video, Pilot Makes Emergency Landing on Busy Highway, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, A380 Cockpit Landing, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You absolutely deviate from that.
You never see wrong from Orange people, and rarely from white, but see nothing but wrong from darker skinned people.

You just see white and black and think it’s the same thing as right and wrong.

I don’t judge people by anything but actions….that leaves most people on my shit list, melanin levels have no bearing on that.
Outfit?

Yes, it is hypocritical because, yes, you did back Bundy at the time and were outraged he was shot, even though he took over a park armed, threatened rangers and police, shot his gun, and fled from police before being shot still armed. Hard to handle that with the courts when he’s on the highway shooting.
You supporting him and were angry, saying those cops didn’t need to shoot him, but are cheering on cops shooting an unarmed man running away no longer threatening anyone… 60 times. The difference? One was extremely more dangerous, violent, armed, and white. You only see the other one as the problem. That’s hypocritical.
I see 60 shots as the problem, and don’t believe the police version that he even fired his gun without proof.

Government overreach? Are you talking about Bundy’s other anti government armed action when he stole grazing from public lands and held off law enforcement with an armed violent militia, which you supported? Cheering him on for refusing to pay for using public lands for private profits and using deadly force against law enforcement? I’m talking about when he violently took over a park for months with more armed violent militia….which you also supported.

My life is pretty good. I have empathy for those less fortunate. I know you can’t understand thinking about someone else’s situation, but it used to be considered normal…real conservatives know that.

Lol…I’m not on any other social media at all, and I rarely get my news here. Sucker. Nice try, but I look for actual sources, not nut jobs saying what I want to hear, like Trump who got the election fraud fraud from an anonymous Twitter account.
It’s pretty telling that you think the way to “truth and understanding “ is remove all sources of information. What exactly do your eyes see with your head in that dark hole? Mine are wide open in the sunshine, sunshine. I see not only the “truth”, but also the various attempts at lies, and being (and keeping myself) fairly well educated I can tell the difference, a trait I’m afraid you sorely lack, friend. Thanks so much for the offer, but it’s like a deaf and blind man offering to lead someone with glasses across the freeway.

On the contrary, we’ve been here for you for over a decade, calmly explaining reality as you scream nonsense and fear monger. We will be here tomorrow. Assuage your fear of abandonment and maybe you can begin to think rationally.

Not if you excuse the invasion and takeover because they were DUE reparations, or even because they were fleeing the Nazis. I think reparations were due….by Germany, not Palestine.
Palestine paid them…and continues to pay them today.
It’s not feasible today, but it was directly after WW2, and that’s what we should have supported, even enforced.

Do you deny a massive influx of Jewish illegal immigrants invited by those who had been generously granted asylum? Do you deny they had the intent to take the land by force for a Jewish state? Do you deny most came after the war ended so weren’t fleeing war or Nazis? If not, where’s the disagreement? If so, citations please.

If they came illegally, absolutely, I object. If they came secretly intending to take the land of their benefactors by force, absolutely, I object. It was mostly in the later 40’s btw, largely AFTER the war ended. They weren’t fleeing Nazi persecution then.
Yes, when you come against the wishes of the local government intending to depose it, install your own, and expel the natives, that’s called invasion. That’s their history.

If I invite a refugee to live in my yard, and they invite their family, neighbors, and groups of armed militants who steal my house, land, and property and put me on skid roe, and the police turn a blind eye, even supporting the squatters because they’ve had it hard lately, do you think I have a right to get my friends to try to remove them, even if I wasn’t prepared to fight to the death unarmed and alone against their mob? If I do, do you still call me the aggressor? Come on. Don’t ignore the primary original crime that precipitated 70 years of atrocities.

Israel declared war by becoming a state by stealing one. I find it bullshit to blame the Palestinians neighbors for supporting their neighbor against a massive invasion and land grab by foreigners. Again, like Mexicans taking Texas back and you complaining if we tried to keep it, especially if we asked our Allie’s for help. Utter nonsense.

The Jewish people had already invaded and expelled the natives, removing all rights from any remaining. The two state solution = just go ahead and keep Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah because there’s already illegal immigrants there, in a few years you can have Kansas and Nevada, then keep expanding….those people are currently in Texas at this time. Again, you ignore the invasion, land theft, and expulsion to pretend Israel was already there…nonsense again.

Yes, it took more force to keep it from the armies of the allies of Palestine than it did to steal it from the recently liberated colony of Palestine that had no military. Duh.

What I see differently is I don’t ignore or forget the violent forced invasion by the Jewish zionists, nor the expulsion, theft from, and dehumanization of the natives, I don’t blame the natives for attempting to regain their ancestral home or properties that the Jewish state outright stole, nor do I ignore the horrific conditions those same people and their descendants have lived under for 70 years, constantly invaded further, no travel allowed, no imports, no water, no medicine, no weapons but treated like the aggressors and the criminal invaders for attempting to fight for THEIR OWN LAND, kept in shrinking ghettos, treated as sub humans to be exterminated, exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews but on a national level.

@newtboy
"I meant in a practical and ethical sense it would have made more sense for them to take part of Germany as actual reparations."
Isn't this a red herring, irrelevant point though unless they were given part of Palestine as 'reparations'? If we're gonna fix history with wishes lets go further and erase WW2.

"When they, as a people, invade a recently sovereign land and take it by force..."
It's your characterization here that you seem to just be asserting as true, but it's the heart of where we see it differently.

Are you objecting to the Jewish refugees illegally taking refuge alongside Jewish people already in Palestine in the 30s and early 40s? Your usage of the word 'invade' seems to suggest that.

Do you think I'm misrepresenting things as well when I pointed out it was the Arab states that declared war, immediately upon Israel embracing a two state solution? And let's be clear, it was a two state solution with borders essentially mirroring the existing land occupied by both Jewish and Arab peoples currently in Palestine at the time.

You declare it was taken by force, but the history as I know it has by far the largest use of force was 100% defensive after the declaration of war by all neighboring Arab states.

What are you seeing so differently at that point of history?

Not what I meant…because it was promised by the British long before WW2…as if it was really theirs to gift. Then they half assed the handoff and just walked away, at least that’s my take. It wasn’t handed to anyone as reparations…I know that.

The Palestinians have bled for that land at least 10 fold the amount Israeli have….just sayin.

I meant in a practical and ethical sense it would have made more sense for them to take part of Germany as actual reparations.

What I mean is the military equipment and funding we gifted them, and continue to gift them, without which they would have been destroyed in the 50’s.

Yes, in the 50’s through 80’s the Arab world was an obstacle to peace at least as much as Israel, but not so much recently….Iran being the main exception. The fact that the Arab world is at least 3 generations of military equipment behind means they aren’t a serious threat and haven’t been since America started defending them in the 50’s.

When they, as a people, invade a recently sovereign land and take it by force, then brutally subjugate the natives in the name of their safety for decades while expanding into their last remaining holdings constantly, all the while playing the victim, I’m 100% prepared to say the Jewish invaders are the bad guys….that’s anyone not granted refugee status by the Palestinians….likely over 99%. The refugees that didn’t take part in the violent bloody nation grab and subjugation and who went back home I do not blame.
.

For my understanding, the general meaning of the word "Zionism" is vastly changed throughout the eras. And there isn't a homogeneous kind of Zionism anyway. What kind of "Zionist agenda" the people/government living in the land of "Israel/Palestine" in the 30-50s to today had in mind and pushing for is totally different. Let's be concerned with today's general definition of Zionism, as mostly defined by the Likud and the other far-right/Nationalist parties in today's Israel shall we?

Also, I can't imagine there are a whole lot of countries that would deny Israel's right-to-exist (like, physically, wholeheartedly want to wipe them of the face of the earth kind, NOT the expedient, political rhetorics for their own domestic consumption kind). And those that could really be crazy enough, like Iran, I constantly (naively?) felt the Ayatollahs would rather opt for silent, staus-quo relations than go to war with Israel (they must see the Ukraine invaison and see Russia/Putin isolation as a lesson, they can't afford to put themselves in the same position as Putin's in a Israel/Iran war. The Ayatollahs don't have even Iranian people standing behind them).

The good is that for Israel vs. the Arab countries, trust building is possible, but incredibly slow -- it only takes one wrong step to negate a mile of trust building -- but still, the past few years have seen some Arab countries opening up bilateral embassies with Israel along wiht increased trades & direct flights, etc.

The no good, very bad news of the statehood issues, daily IvP conflict, land grabs and from low-level militray incursions to the occasional missiles trading military operations, are happening far too often. Thus making hard-core Zionism, support of Hamas, the isolation of the Palestinian people & economy, etc. all the more severe. None of these are paths towards peace and/or creating the conditions for mutually agreeable settlement. All the flashpoints needs to be addressed in an even-handed way. But we just don't see balance in the media and/or the world political arena.

@bcglorf

I only mention the illegal status of the invading Jewish masses in the 40’s because they would deny it. I’ve heard many a person claim all Jewish people there were legal immigrants and legal refugees invited in by Palestinians, but the vast majority came after the war ended…illegally….intent on taking over the country and expelling the natives.

Coming as refugees intending to return “home” would have been fine for everyone, but they didn’t want to try that….it wouldn’t end with a Jewish state.

I’m only anti Zionist because they don’t play fair. Because they claim absolute rights to others land, heritage, water, defense, even lives, then act self righteous about their Nazi like behavior and deny any obvious parallels. I find intolerable the one sided “conflict” where rocks or fireworks are met with bullets and bombs under the excuse that “we have the right to defend ourselves”, where well under 10000 Israeli have died but over 65000 Palestinians have been killed directly not counting the millions who died of disease, malnourishment, lack of water, lack of medicine, etc. from the treatment they received from Israel.
I really dislike the situation because my country involved itself and CAUSED it….without our intervention Israel would have ceased to exist in the 50’s, and it sickens me that my country pays for a genocidal racist nation to continue to exist.

I believe the Jewish state should have been carved out of Germany. I would not complain with them returning the treatment they received from actual Nazis…it’s treating relatively innocent victims like that simply because they can that’s unconscionable.

My gripe is totally about their collective actions, not their genetics or religion. That’s the important difference between my reasoning and the right’s hatred of non white immigrants.

Well put. But what's the % of Western (or the whole World in general except the Middle Eastern region) population who can make the distinction? It's really depressing.

Here in Canada, IMO the political landscape is very much the same as in the US. It is firmly drilled into people's mind that anyone criticizing the government of Israel's constant harrasement, military action, and land grabs in Palestinian territories are automatically branded as Anti-semitism by the likes of the JDOs (Jewish Defense Organizations). There are many legit Anti-Semitism incidents in Canada that need to be condemned, true, but there are also real over-reaction and subpression of objective opinions by the JDOs. These "false branding" hurts people's lives. And we almost NEVER hear the word Zionist (or anti-Zionist) in the media, mostly isolated to academic circles only.

Nobody would be offended hearing someone criticize any country's policy and military incursion (say, you don't like Trump/Biden? No one will say you're anti-American), but any negative comment involving Israel? Damn it boy, you're begging for trouble. As if Isreal, Likud, Netanyahu and the Jewish people are one and the same. Criticize one, you criticize all. But why is that? What makes Isreal, above all other countries, well above any reproach?

Now, I'm not pro- or anti-Semite nor pro- or anti-Zionist. Such generalised sentiment is wrong to me. I'm just pro-peace, the history of that land is way too complex and the blood spilled between its peoples ran for generations and gone on for centuries. It's unrealistic for any leaders to settle anything between their peoples in a political term or two (and not even factoring outside influences that DON'T want them to settle). There are too many hate and zero trust between the peoples right now. Just let peace reigns for a decade then it'll be time to talk settlement of statehood. Give Isrealites & Palestinians some peaoce & prosperity first. Everyone, including the media, politicians inside and outside of that land, the UN, etc. just need to recognize that and not be just so lopsided in their support.

Being anti Zionist is not the same as being an anti semite, no matter how much the Jewish people claim it is.
Being a Zionist makes one a racist draconian invader that fully supports slow genocide of innocent children in order to steal more of their ancestral land. We should not support Israel in their evil murderous genocide.

makes me want to play 8-bit NES Top Gun again... so hard to land that thing on an aircraft carrier.

If you haven't seen it , this doc may interest you.

"Ukraine on Fire"

Across its eastern border is Russia and to its west-Europe. For centuries, it has been at the center of a tug-of-war between powers seeking to control its rich lands and access to the Black Sea. 2014's Maidan Massacre triggered a bloody uprising that ousted president Viktor Yanukovych and painted Russia as the perpetrator by Western media. But was it? "Ukraine on Fire" by Igor Lopatonok provides a historical perspective for the deep divisions in the region which lead to the 2004 Orange Revolution, 2014 uprisings, and the violent overthrow of democratically elected Yanukovych. Covered by Western media as a people's revolution, it was in fact a coup d'état scripted and staged by nationalist groups and the U.S. State Department. Investigative journalist Robert Parry reveals how U.S.-funded political NGOs and media companies have emerged since the 80s replacing the CIA in promoting America's geopolitical agenda abroad.

Can watch here if interested https://youtu.be/fCWBRg6_VsM