If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Oh, no, not this shiat again   (foxnews.com) divider line 205
    More: Unlikely, cable network, flights, documentary  
•       •       •

22904 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jun 2013 at 1:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



205 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-18 08:28:04 PM
Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.

So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.
 
2013-06-18 09:00:40 PM

Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.

So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.


He flew F-102s.....
 
2013-06-18 09:34:51 PM

Ricardo Klement: So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.


It was obviously a bird of prey that can fire when cloaked.
 
2013-06-18 10:21:15 PM

JohnAnnArbor: Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.

So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.

He flew F-102s.....


That's what's so brilliant about the plan.  You'd never suspect him.
 
2013-06-19 12:38:24 AM
I heard it was the same Israeli crew that sank the Liberty.
 
2013-06-19 12:42:49 AM
no names. no specific information. references to vague "gag orders" that now apparently don't matter now that they are going to be in a movie.

But best of all....They don't give any reasons for the crash.

Fertile ground for the crazies who won't realize this is all about a movie promotion and nothing more.
 
2013-06-19 01:32:04 AM
BENGHAZ-- Oh, wait, wrong scandal...
 
2013-06-19 01:32:12 AM
I know why the plane crashed

gravity. it's a biatch
 
2013-06-19 01:34:28 AM
I honestly don't recall this his historic crash. Oh well.
 
2013-06-19 01:35:24 AM
I do believe that 2013 will be known as "The Year The People Talking To Me Through My Tin-Foil Hat Were right!"

Really all we need now is the alien bodies from Roswell and the Second CIA shooter from the Grassy Knoll to surface and we will have a clean sweep!
 
2013-06-19 01:38:56 AM
FTA : the cause of the explosion was due to an explosion in the gas tank caused by a short circuit.

When in doubt, say it was a short.
 
2013-06-19 01:41:23 AM

Via Infinito: Ricardo Klement: So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.

It was obviously a bird of prey that can fire when cloaked.


Al Qaeda is breaking the treaty of Algeron!?

Those bastards.
 
2013-06-19 01:42:50 AM
They're not saying it was aliens...
 
2013-06-19 01:42:58 AM
It was an Infernal Machine.
 
2013-06-19 01:43:30 AM
Anything to draw attention away from Boeing, a known fuel flaw, and the complicit corporate patriarchy. Who are the Sheeple now?
 
2013-06-19 01:46:10 AM

Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.

So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.


The flying brick!
 
2013-06-19 01:47:00 AM

TomD9938: FTA : the cause of the explosion was due to an explosion in the gas tank caused by a short circuit.

When in doubt, say it was a short.


I don't know if you recall the stories flying around then, but there was a whole lot of sweat, effort, and ink devoted to explaining how this particular permutation of electron excitement could occur

/and once or twice, there was mention of eyewitness reports of something flashing upward towards the plane...
 
2013-06-19 01:49:18 AM
When the tanks are full of fuel and with very little air, how does it explode? If you take a gallon of jet fuel in a gallon tank, toss in a lit cigarette and close the cap, would you expect it to explode? I'm not a conspiracy guy in any way, I just do not understand where the oxidizer is coming from here - initially I mean, before the breakup.
 
2013-06-19 01:49:24 AM

zerkalo: Anything to draw attention away from Boeing, a known fuel flaw, and the complicit corporate patriarchy. Who are the Sheeple now?

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 01:49:27 AM
Thought this was the one caused by faulty oxygen storage units / batteries ?Ahh, no that was the recent airbus scandal.

A major reason for the flammability of the fuel/air vapor in the CWT of the 747 was the large amount of heat generated and transferred to the CWT by air conditioning packs located directly below the tank; with the CWT temperature raised to a sufficient level, a single ignition source could cause an explosion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800
 
2013-06-19 01:52:48 AM

WhoopAssWayne: When the tanks are full of fuel and with very little air, how does it explode? If you take a gallon of jet fuel in a gallon tank, toss in a lit cigarette and close the cap, would you expect it to explode? I'm not a conspiracy guy in any way, I just do not understand where the oxidizer is coming from here - initially I mean, before the breakup.


IIRC, the midship tank where the short occurred was empty, according to the official explanation

/but there were still "fumes" present
 
2013-06-19 01:53:25 AM

enry: They're not saying it was aliens...


But they didn't say it wasn't aliens...illegal aliens...think about it...from Kenya...
 
2013-06-19 01:54:48 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-19 01:55:03 AM
What happened? Murdoch blocked.
 
2013-06-19 01:55:58 AM

WhoopAssWayne: When the tanks are full of fuel and with very little air, how does it explode? If you take a gallon of jet fuel in a gallon tank, toss in a lit cigarette and close the cap, would you expect it to explode? I'm not a conspiracy guy in any way, I just do not understand where the oxidizer is coming from here - initially I mean, before the breakup.


If there's a leak, air would get in.
 
2013-06-19 01:56:49 AM

CygnusDarius: BENGHAZ-- Oh, wait, wrong scandal...


Don't worry.

Issa will find some way to blame Obama.
 
2013-06-19 01:57:07 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: IIRC, the midship tank where the short occurred was empty, according to the official explanation


Got it. Fuel/air mixture, spark present, understand their explanation now. Cool, thanks. I just assumed they would have a full fuel load for that flight, but not necessarily the case given that plane's world-wide range.
 
2013-06-19 01:57:43 AM
Director should look up the difference between ordinance and ordnance.
 
2013-06-19 01:58:58 AM
This is Obama's Corrupt Bargain of 1876. This means Samuel Tilden is president and Doc is alive and well in 1985.
 
2013-06-19 01:59:54 AM

JohnAnnArbor: He flew F-102s.....


But his cod piece was all S-3 Viking.
 
2013-06-19 02:01:44 AM
Thanks, Obama!
 
2013-06-19 02:04:02 AM
I recall the main conspiracy theory was that an Ageis ship was parked off the coast and was using planes leaving JFK or what ever airport it was, and targeting them with radar, as a training thing. Something went wrong and a missile launched on the plane. They say something similar happened when the Iranian jet liner was shot down a few years before that by an Ageis system.The missile boat crews are not huge, so it could be a few navy folks to make disappear as damage control. Since Clinton was in office at the time, who knows what he would have done to silence them.
 
2013-06-19 02:04:17 AM
Oh bullshiat. I attended  a conference on crash data recorders in the mid aughts held atthe NTSB in Ashburn, Virginia. As a surprise at the end of the conference they invited a lecture hall filled with forensic engineers and other forensic scientists into the hanger for a full access tour of the TWA800 wreckage with a full detailed explanation of how it occurred, showing all the explosion damage from the central fuel tank into the luggage compartment, showing the fuel sensor rod that caused it, everything. This was before the public was allowed access to view it and we were allowed to walk around it, under it, and down the aisles inside the plane. They had virtually every part of the plane picked off the ocean floor and reassembled except the wings wouldn't have fit in the hanger. You could tell how the wings had ripped off upward, how the front section of the aircraft tore, and how the rows of seats on the upper deck blew out the right side of the fuselage when the section hit the water.

I don't think a conspiracy that crazy would allow a good 120 forensic experts from all sorts of backgrounds that kind of access with that detail of story. They even talked about the conspiracy theories, the missiles that witnesses saw, etc.
 
2013-06-19 02:07:13 AM
What's Alex Jones's take on this?
 
2013-06-19 02:09:10 AM

Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.

So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.


The stinger's effective range is rated at about 4,500 meters.  That's not it's absolute range.  It can go further, though accuracy is greatly reduced.  It's been used at 5,000 meters, possibly more.
 
2013-06-19 02:09:50 AM
On a side note...the term "whistleblower" has ceased to have any meaning whatsoever.
 
2013-06-19 02:09:56 AM

digistil: What's Alex Jones's take on this?


Lizard people.
 
2013-06-19 02:12:20 AM

sat1va: digistil: What's Alex Jones's take on this?

Lizard people.


Wait... Is the flight 800 incident related to the recent Bilderberg meeting?
 
2013-06-19 02:13:32 AM

sat1va: Oh bullshiat. I attended  a conference on crash data recorders in the mid aughts held atthe NTSB in Ashburn, Virginia. As a surprise at the end of the conference they invited a lecture hall filled with forensic engineers and other forensic scientists into the hanger for a full access tour of the TWA800 wreckage with a full detailed explanation of how it occurred, showing all the explosion damage from the central fuel tank into the luggage compartment, showing the fuel sensor rod that caused it, everything. This was before the public was allowed access to view it and we were allowed to walk around it, under it, and down the aisles inside the plane. They had virtually every part of the plane picked off the ocean floor and reassembled except the wings wouldn't have fit in the hanger. You could tell how the wings had ripped off upward, how the front section of the aircraft tore, and how the rows of seats on the upper deck blew out the right side of the fuselage when the section hit the water.

I don't think a conspiracy that crazy would allow a good 120 forensic experts from all sorts of backgrounds that kind of access with that detail of story. They even talked about the conspiracy theories, the missiles that witnesses saw, etc.


ummm...
However, the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team, stopped short of saying the plane was shot down.
 
2013-06-19 02:16:33 AM
the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team

Hmmm, doesn't sound like the usual wing nuts yelling conspiracy.  I remember when this happened and there were witnesses claiming they saw, beyond a shadow of a doubt, something fiery going distinctly up towards the aircraft.

/Not a conspiracy nut
 
2013-06-19 02:16:37 AM

mr lawson: However, the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team, stopped short of saying the plane was shot down.


what are their names and what role did the have in the investigation?
 
2013-06-19 02:17:31 AM

Fista-Phobia: Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.

So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.

The flying brick!


You laugh, but one day we will be fighting an enemy in a glass house...
 
2013-06-19 02:18:58 AM

mr lawson: sat1va: Oh bullshiat. I attended  a conference on crash data recorders in the mid aughts held atthe NTSB in Ashburn, Virginia. As a surprise at the end of the conference they invited a lecture hall filled with forensic engineers and other forensic scientists into the hanger for a full access tour of the TWA800 wreckage with a full detailed explanation of how it occurred, showing all the explosion damage from the central fuel tank into the luggage compartment, showing the fuel sensor rod that caused it, everything. This was before the public was allowed access to view it and we were allowed to walk around it, under it, and down the aisles inside the plane. They had virtually every part of the plane picked off the ocean floor and reassembled except the wings wouldn't have fit in the hanger. You could tell how the wings had ripped off upward, how the front section of the aircraft tore, and how the rows of seats on the upper deck blew out the right side of the fuselage when the section hit the water.

I don't think a conspiracy that crazy would allow a good 120 forensic experts from all sorts of backgrounds that kind of access with that detail of story. They even talked about the conspiracy theories, the missiles that witnesses saw, etc.

ummm...
However, the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team, stopped short of saying the plane was shot down.


I'm not stating an opinion either way as I don't have access to data that would be necessary to provide a properly informed theory.  However ....

If you want to shut down discussion, what better way than to set up a reconstruction the way you wish that provides the clues you want seen and marching 120 forensics experts through it?

Personally, I'm going to have to go with six of the original investigating team members with all the time in the world to study evidence trumps 120 given really what amounts to a "glance".  I don't care if that 120 crowd was given a few hours.  That's still just a glance when investigating something this complex.
 
2013-06-19 02:19:19 AM

mr lawson: sat1va: Oh bullshiat. I attended  a conference on crash data recorders in the mid aughts held atthe NTSB in Ashburn, Virginia. As a surprise at the end of the conference they invited a lecture hall filled with forensic engineers and other forensic scientists into the hanger for a full access tour of the TWA800 wreckage with a full detailed explanation of how it occurred, showing all the explosion damage from the central fuel tank into the luggage compartment, showing the fuel sensor rod that caused it, everything. This was before the public was allowed access to view it and we were allowed to walk around it, under it, and down the aisles inside the plane. They had virtually every part of the plane picked off the ocean floor and reassembled except the wings wouldn't have fit in the hanger. You could tell how the wings had ripped off upward, how the front section of the aircraft tore, and how the rows of seats on the upper deck blew out the right side of the fuselage when the section hit the water.

I don't think a conspiracy that crazy would allow a good 120 forensic experts from all sorts of backgrounds that kind of access with that detail of story. They even talked about the conspiracy theories, the missiles that witnesses saw, etc.

ummm...
However, the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team, stopped short of saying the plane was shot down.


Define "part".
 
2013-06-19 02:19:51 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: WhoopAssWayne: When the tanks are full of fuel and with very little air, how does it explode? If you take a gallon of jet fuel in a gallon tank, toss in a lit cigarette and close the cap, would you expect it to explode? I'm not a conspiracy guy in any way, I just do not understand where the oxidizer is coming from here - initially I mean, before the breakup.

IIRC, the midship tank where the short occurred was empty, according to the official explanation

/but there were still "fumes" present


Kerozene burn, kerozene fumes and vaporized kerozene explode. Be a bit careful on how you store heating fuel tank. For this particular case... dun't know nothing, but will need popcorn... and cancel that trip to Roswell until my next anal bleaching, dun't want to look bad to them alienz...
 
2013-06-19 02:20:06 AM

log_jammin: what are their names and what role did the have in the investigation?


see...Those are the important questions. Were they the forensic team or the "go get coffee" team members.
But since they were there first, it makes sense to....wait for it.........
.
..
.
.
.
. Study it out. :-)
 
2013-06-19 02:20:23 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: WhoopAssWayne: When the tanks are full of fuel and with very little air, how does it explode? If you take a gallon of jet fuel in a gallon tank, toss in a lit cigarette and close the cap, would you expect it to explode? I'm not a conspiracy guy in any way, I just do not understand where the oxidizer is coming from here - initially I mean, before the breakup.

IIRC, the midship tank where the short occurred was empty, according to the official explanation

/but there were still "fumes" present


Why would a fuel tank be empty on a trans-Atlantic flight? Not to sound like a wacko but that seems weird. What is the range on the 747 with that tank empty?
 
2013-06-19 02:21:30 AM

KidneyStone: the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team

Hmmm, doesn't sound like the usual wing nuts yelling conspiracy.  I remember when this happened and there were witnesses claiming they saw, beyond a shadow of a doubt, something fiery going distinctly up towards the aircraft.

/Not a conspiracy nut


Wasn't one of those witnesses an army or marine sergeant, who the government claimed was insane?  It's been too long for me to remember what was written at the time.
 
2013-06-19 02:22:11 AM

KidneyStone: the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team

Hmmm, doesn't sound like the usual wing nuts yelling conspiracy.  I remember when this happened and there were witnesses claiming they saw, beyond a shadow of a doubt, something fiery going distinctly up towards the aircraft.

/Not a conspiracy nut


Witnesses to an event of that scale can exaggerate or be mistaken.
 
2013-06-19 02:22:23 AM

sat1va: Oh bullshiat. I attended  a conference on crash data recorders in the mid aughts held atthe NTSB in Ashburn, Virginia. As a surprise at the end of the conference they invited a lecture hall filled with forensic engineers and other forensic scientists into the hanger for a full access tour of the TWA800 wreckage with a full detailed explanation of how it occurred, showing all the explosion damage from the central fuel tank into the luggage compartment, showing the fuel sensor rod that caused it, everything. This was before the public was allowed access to view it and we were allowed to walk around it, under it, and down the aisles inside the plane. They had virtually every part of the plane picked off the ocean floor and reassembled except the wings wouldn't have fit in the hanger. You could tell how the wings had ripped off upward, how the front section of the aircraft tore, and how the rows of seats on the upper deck blew out the right side of the fuselage when the section hit the water.

I don't think a conspiracy that crazy would allow a good 120 forensic experts from all sorts of backgrounds that kind of access with that detail of story. They even talked about the conspiracy theories, the missiles that witnesses saw, etc.


I don't think a conspiracy that crazy effective would allow a good 120 forensic experts from all sorts of backgrounds that kind of access with that detail of story. They even talked about the conspiracy theories, the missiles that witnesses saw, etc.

/FTFY
 
2013-06-19 02:24:47 AM
Raging Bull's son was on that plane.
 
2013-06-19 02:25:50 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: /but there were still "fumes" present


uh oh. You put the word fumes in quotes. That must make the initial claim that "fumes' were present an automatic lie.

welp....case closed. Thanks for that important info.
 
2013-06-19 02:26:15 AM
I was part of the original investigation team and I still maintain that it was remotely detonated and John Landis was involved.
 
2013-06-19 02:26:30 AM
img.fark.net

\wanted for questioning
 
2013-06-19 02:27:39 AM

OgreMagi: Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.

So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.

The stinger's effective range is rated at about 4,500 meters.  That's not it's absolute range.  It can go further, though accuracy is greatly reduced.  It's been used at 5,000 meters, possibly more.


And, the other thing to remember is that actual weapon/weapon platform ranges (and other capabilities) are usually classified, with some, lower, capability being approved for publication.

So that 4500 meter range listed on wikipedia and elsewhere is just what the Original Classification Authority has approved for release.


Note:  I've no idea if the FIM-92 (Stinger) has been completely declassified.  If it has, then the range numbers are likely to be much more accurate.
 
2013-06-19 02:28:20 AM

gunsmack: Director should look up the difference between ordinance and ordnance.


Was coming here to say the same.
 
2013-06-19 02:29:03 AM
Everyone with half a brain knows the crash was caused by militants . Grey Goose militants
 
2013-06-19 02:32:19 AM
It was thermite planted before the plane took off! Study it out, sheeple.
 
2013-06-19 02:33:43 AM

LoneWolf343: Fista-Phobia: Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.

So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.

The flying brick!

You laugh, but one day we will be fighting an enemy in a glass house...


Watch the canopy!
 
2013-06-19 02:33:49 AM

duffblue: Why would a fuel tank be empty on a trans-Atlantic flight?


I have you farkied as a fumbduck, for good reason. Commercial aircraft never take on more fuel than they need. Its a weight / safety issue. Now, if that plan was a non-stop from NY to Hong Kong- damn skippy that heavy metal bird would have been topped off. NY to Paris ? yeah- not so much
 
2013-06-19 02:33:54 AM
I used to believe it was a missile. But in thinking about it now, I realize I was wrong. I put to much weight into eyewitnesses statements.

Remember that whole "missile was launched from the ocean off the coast of California" from a little while back? Lots of people thought that was a missile too, and that was just a contrail in the setting sun disguised by the curvature of the earth.  So eyewitnesses are pretty unreliable.

So it was very likely people mistook the breaking up plane as exploding when they heard the sound from the explosion which would have been some time later. To someone looking out at a great distance, things can appear to ascend when they are really not. So there can be an optical illusion that appears like two objects are coming together when they really aren't. (Like this) This picture is through a lens, but something so far away would have the same effect with your eyes... especially when you are just looking at points of light.

So while I look forward to hearing about new evidence, I'm going to remain skeptical.
 
2013-06-19 02:36:20 AM

mr lawson: sat1va: Oh bullshiat. I attended  a conference on crash data recorders in the mid aughts held atthe NTSB in Ashburn, Virginia. As a surprise at the end of the conference they invited a lecture hall filled with forensic engineers and other forensic scientists into the hanger for a full access tour of the TWA800 wreckage with a full detailed explanation of how it occurred, showing all the explosion damage from the central fuel tank into the luggage compartment, showing the fuel sensor rod that caused it, everything. This was before the public was allowed access to view it and we were allowed to walk around it, under it, and down the aisles inside the plane. They had virtually every part of the plane picked off the ocean floor and reassembled except the wings wouldn't have fit in the hanger. You could tell how the wings had ripped off upward, how the front section of the aircraft tore, and how the rows of seats on the upper deck blew out the right side of the fuselage when the section hit the water.

I don't think a conspiracy that crazy would allow a good 120 forensic experts from all sorts of backgrounds that kind of access with that detail of story. They even talked about the conspiracy theories, the missiles that witnesses saw, etc.

ummm...
However, the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team, stopped short of saying the plane was shot down.


Well most of the discussion on the tour was around the fuel tank, and everything I saw clearly showed the explosion came from inside there pushing forward into the luggage compartments, not the other way around. Since the planes central tank was virtually empty with a small puddle of fuel, and it had been sitting on the runway in high heat cooking the fuel into vapor for a few hours before take-off, they concluded that the fuel sensor rod with the corroded connection had arced and sparked the fuel vapors. This was the only known ignition source in the fuel tank and the explosion of the tank in my opinion looked far more like a tank full of vapor exploding and rupturing versus the concentrated damage you would expect from an explosive device. There was nothing of the sort in the luggage compartments or cabin. There was also definitely no missile holes in the fuselage either.

As part of a recall if I remember correctly the resolution to this potential problem was redesigning the fuel sensing rod and adding a small venting system to purge vapor from empty tanks. They figured it could have happened to any 747 prior to the recall under the perfect conditions.
 
2013-06-19 02:38:47 AM

alienated: duffblue: Why would a fuel tank be empty on a trans-Atlantic flight?

I have you farkied as a fumbduck, for good reason. Commercial aircraft never take on more fuel than they need. Its a weight / safety issue. Now, if that plan was a non-stop from NY to Hong Kong- damn skippy that heavy metal bird would have been topped off. NY to Paris ? yeah- not so much


You are not supposed to make sense on fark or so I've been told ; )
 
2013-06-19 02:39:00 AM

sat1va: it had been sitting on the runway in high heat cooking the fuel into "vapor" for a few hours before take-off, they concluded that the fuel sensor rod with the corroded connection had arced and sparked the fuel "vapors".


Please note that I have added quotes around the words Vapor and Vapors. your argument is now invalid.
 
2013-06-19 02:41:13 AM
However it happened, it would suck to be in the back half of the plane at 600 mph+ minus the cockpit.
 
2013-06-19 02:43:11 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-19 02:45:20 AM
Thanks Obama!
 
2013-06-19 02:46:52 AM
I KNOW THE TRUTH, YOU ASSHOLES!

i4.ytimg.com
 
2013-06-19 02:47:46 AM
img.fark.net
/hot
 
2013-06-19 02:49:35 AM

LordJiro: mr lawson: sat1va: Oh bullshiat. I attended  a conference on crash data recorders in the mid aughts held atthe NTSB in Ashburn, Virginia. As a surprise at the end of the conference they invited a lecture hall filled with forensic engineers and other forensic scientists into the hanger for a full access tour of the TWA800 wreckage with a full detailed explanation of how it occurred, showing all the explosion damage from the central fuel tank into the luggage compartment, showing the fuel sensor rod that caused it, everything. This was before the public was allowed access to view it and we were allowed to walk around it, under it, and down the aisles inside the plane. They had virtually every part of the plane picked off the ocean floor and reassembled except the wings wouldn't have fit in the hanger. You could tell how the wings had ripped off upward, how the front section of the aircraft tore, and how the rows of seats on the upper deck blew out the right side of the fuselage when the section hit the water.

I don't think a conspiracy that crazy would allow a good 120 forensic experts from all sorts of backgrounds that kind of access with that detail of story. They even talked about the conspiracy theories, the missiles that witnesses saw, etc.

ummm...
However, the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team, stopped short of saying the plane was shot down.

Define "part".


The tour guide was "part" of the investigation and he was actually a lawyer with the NTSB (also had an engineering degree). He said just about everyone at the NTSB was involved in the collection of the components from the ocean and the reassembly, including himself despite being in the role of a lawyer with the board. He seemed genuinely still a little farked up by the whole thing, describing the recovery as painfully large in scope straining all their resources. The fact that 6 out of hundreds of "investigators" disagree with the conclusion doesn't surprise me. Heck, one of my former engineering supervisors who is otherwise pretty damn smart thinks evolution is the stupidest thing that anyone could ever believe, the world is 10,000 years old, Noah's flood created the Grand Canyon, and Jesus rode a T-rex.
 
2013-06-19 02:49:51 AM

duffblue: Why would a fuel tank be empty on a trans-Atlantic flight? Not to sound like a wacko but that seems weird. What is the range on the 747 with that tank empty?


Should be enough to make the trip to Paris with the requisite reserves.
 
2013-06-19 02:55:01 AM

duffblue: MaudlinMutantMollusk: WhoopAssWayne: When the tanks are full of fuel and with very little air, how does it explode? If you take a gallon of jet fuel in a gallon tank, toss in a lit cigarette and close the cap, would you expect it to explode? I'm not a conspiracy guy in any way, I just do not understand where the oxidizer is coming from here - initially I mean, before the breakup.

IIRC, the midship tank where the short occurred was empty, according to the official explanation

/but there were still "fumes" present

Why would a fuel tank be empty on a trans-Atlantic flight? Not to sound like a wacko but that seems weird. What is the range on the 747 with that tank empty?


On a global scale, New York and Paris are fairly close. There just happens to be a large ocean in the middle. A flight from San Diego to Maine would be a similar distance. In fact, fully fuelled 747 could fly New York to Paris and back again, with fuel to spare.
 
2013-06-19 02:56:04 AM
Quick, we'd better bomb another country. Who haven't we yet turned into a smoldering crater of freedom?
 
2013-06-19 02:58:12 AM

the_chief: Quick, we'd better bomb another country. Who haven't we yet turned into a smoldering crater of freedom?


France?  Oh, wait.  I forgot about WW2.

How about Canada?
 
2013-06-19 03:01:32 AM

GregoryD: I used to believe it was a missile. But in thinking about it now, I realize I was wrong. I put to much weight into eyewitnesses statements.

Remember that whole "missile was launched from the ocean off the coast of California" from a little while back? Lots of people thought that was a missile too, and that was just a contrail in the setting sun disguised by the curvature of the earth.  So eyewitnesses are pretty unreliable.

So it was very likely people mistook the breaking up plane as exploding when they heard the sound from the explosion which would have been some time later. To someone looking out at a great distance, things can appear to ascend when they are really not. So there can be an optical illusion that appears like two objects are coming together when they really aren't. (Like this) This picture is through a lens, but something so far away would have the same effect with your eyes... especially when you are just looking at points of light.

So while I look forward to hearing about new evidence, I'm going to remain skeptical.


That's essentially the description we got, except they figured the witnesses saw the initial explosion, which caused the aircraft to incline into a high attitude causing severe stress on the wings. Witnesses at this point would have seen the plane inclining with smoke and flame trailing behind, then as the wings began ripping off from  the attitude and weakened structures the wing tanks ignited creating a fireball as aircraft breaks in half. A witness trying to make sense of it could easily remember seeing fire and a streak of smoke approaching the plane which then exploded and could only assume it was a missile. People see what they think they see during unexpected events and often have shiatty recollections of it. I've read hundreds of witness statements related to car crashes and people remember things in every which way, with events out of sequence, remembering a white car as a black one, etc.
 
2013-06-19 03:03:05 AM

OgreMagi: the_chief: Quick, we'd better bomb another country. Who haven't we yet turned into a smoldering crater of freedom?

France?  Oh, wait.  I forgot about WW2.

How about Canada?


Canada actually deserves it for their crimes against humanity.

static6.businessinsider.com
 
2013-06-19 03:04:04 AM
"They indicated they would elaborate more in a Wednesday media briefing."


I would expect to see/hear everything if you are going to bring something like this up. I want to see all the evidence that at least shows the previous conclusion is wrong. This is not the stuff you play conspiracy theory with and then just show some chickenwire burning.
 
2013-06-19 03:07:16 AM

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: the_chief: Quick, we'd better bomb another country. Who haven't we yet turned into a smoldering crater of freedom?

France?  Oh, wait.  I forgot about WW2.

How about Canada?

Canada actually deserves it for their crimes against humanity.

[static6.businessinsider.com image 400x300]


I could kill for a Molson right now. That said- really- try a La Fin du Monde, but Maudite is much better

tinfoil-hat maggie: You are not supposed to make sense on fark or so I've been told ; )


I know, but im old school, yo .
 
2013-06-19 03:13:37 AM

Bill_Wick's_Friend: Via Infinito: Ricardo Klement: So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.

It was obviously a bird of prey that can fire when cloaked.

Al Qaeda is breaking the treaty of Algeron!?

Those bastards.


Someone should DEFINITELY put flowers on that poor mouse's grave.

/Yes I know they aren't spelled the same.  Hush.
 
2013-06-19 03:14:22 AM

Via Infinito: Ricardo Klement: So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.

It was obviously a bird of prey that can fire when cloaked.


No blood for transparent aluminum!
 
2013-06-19 03:16:10 AM

the_chief: Quick, we'd better bomb another country. Who haven't we yet turned into a smoldering crater of freedom?


After the last few sh*tholes, I say we give the troops a break: Invade the Bahamas.
 
2013-06-19 03:18:35 AM

Mad_Flyer: MaudlinMutantMollusk: WhoopAssWayne: When the tanks are full of fuel and with very little air, how does it explode? If you take a gallon of jet fuel in a gallon tank, toss in a lit cigarette and close the cap, would you expect it to explode? I'm not a conspiracy guy in any way, I just do not understand where the oxidizer is coming from here - initially I mean, before the breakup.

IIRC, the midship tank where the short occurred was empty, according to the official explanation

/but there were still "fumes" present

Kerozene burn, kerozene fumes and vaporized kerozene explode. Be a bit careful on how you store heating fuel tank. For this particular case... dun't know nothing, but will need popcorn... and cancel that trip to Roswell until my next anal bleaching, dun't want to look bad to them alienz...


Explosiv wie Kerosin mit viel Oktan und frei von Blei einen Kraftstoff wie Benzin.
 
2013-06-19 03:24:54 AM

alienated: hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: the_chief: Quick, we'd better bomb another country. Who haven't we yet turned into a smoldering crater of freedom?

France?  Oh, wait.  I forgot about WW2.

How about Canada?

Canada actually deserves it for their crimes against humanity.

[static6.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

I could kill for a Molson right now. That said- really- try a La Fin du Monde, but Maudite is much better

tinfoil-hat maggie: You are not supposed to make sense on fark or so I've been told ; )

I know, but im old school, yo .


Nothing wrong with that ; )
 
2013-06-19 03:26:04 AM
If this scandal is true, the powers that be decided that the sheeple will be more comfortable with aircraft that can spontaneously explode versus an aircraft was accidentally shot down by the military, or intentionally shot down by terrorists.

Given the past 12 years, I would applaud a government that would cover up a terrorist attack as an "accident" seeing how those "sheeple" become batshat insane over a deliberate attack. When you point out how insignificant the odds are of dieing in an attack, they fly off the handle saying your competence in statistics is treason.

They can handle 300 people dieing in an "accident" that can be fixed by some unseen amount of money on some unseen amount of improvement, but if it was "terrorism"! We're talking about a $trillion invasion.

Covering up terrorist attacks as "accidents" should be the de facto way of handling them. It nullifies the terrorist's means of cooresion.
 
2013-06-19 03:29:18 AM
ciberido All I can say is call me I love you: )
/Wut?
 
2013-06-19 03:31:52 AM

impaler: If this scandal is true, the powers that be decided that the sheeple will be more comfortable with aircraft that can spontaneously explode versus an aircraft was accidentally shot down by the military, or intentionally shot down by terrorists.

Given the past 12 years, I would applaud a government that would cover up a terrorist attack as an "accident" seeing how those "sheeple" become batshat insane over a deliberate attack. When you point out how insignificant the odds are of dieing in an attack, they fly off the handle saying your competence in statistics is treason.

They can handle 300 people dieing in an "accident" that can be fixed by some unseen amount of money on some unseen amount of improvement, but if it was "terrorism"! We're talking about a $trillion invasion.

Covering up terrorist attacks as "accidents" should be the de facto way of handling them. It nullifies the terrorist's means of cooresion.


I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2013-06-19 03:32:57 AM

impaler: If this scandal is true, the powers that be decided that the sheeple will be more comfortable with aircraft that can spontaneously explode versus an aircraft was accidentally shot down by the military, or intentionally shot down by terrorists.

Given the past 12 years, I would applaud a government that would cover up a terrorist attack as an "accident" seeing how those "sheeple" become batshat insane over a deliberate attack. When you point out how insignificant the odds are of dieing in an attack, they fly off the handle saying your competence in statistics is treason.

They can handle 300 people dieing in an "accident" that can be fixed by some unseen amount of money on some unseen amount of improvement, but if it was "terrorism"! We're talking about a $trillion invasion.

Covering up terrorist attacks as "accidents" should be the de facto way of handling them. It nullifies the terrorist's means of cooresion.


Pretty sure I read this book about 4 years ago and it sucked then.
 
2013-06-19 03:53:50 AM
Listen Betty, don't start up with your white zone shiat again.
 
2013-06-19 03:55:15 AM

dywed88: On a global scale, New York and Paris are fairly close. There just happens to be a large ocean in the middle. A flight from San Diego to Maine would be a similar distance. In fact, fully fuelled 747 could fly New York to Paris and back again, with fuel to spare.


SD to Bangor is about 1,000nmi less than NY to Paris.  A fully fueled 747-100 like TWA 800 would not complete a NY-Paris-NY round trip without refueling.  It might be able to glide into Gander, but would probably end up in the Atlantic just shy of the coast of Newfoundland.
 
2013-06-19 03:57:47 AM

impaler: Covering up terrorist attacks as "accidents" should be the de facto way of handling them. It nullifies the terrorist's means of cooresion.


No. I wont bother with the typos, but thats the wrong way to handle it.
Accidents happen, all day, every day.
Terroristic attacks do not. Sure- they happen almost every damn day, but they at least show some kind of planning beyond  hold my beer and watch this or hold my torah , or hold my quran.
Im not saying to watch that person in a turban parking a van behind a hotel, but if they have a van that says laundry and they roll out a cart filled with televisions- pay attention. Or if its a white person with a landscape truck that rolls up behind a shopping mall at 8 pm without even a damn lawnmower- pay attention. Is that really a UPS delivery at 9 pm ? The step van was in fact brown ... I could go on, but I hope that you get the point. That said- I use a rucksack all the time filled with coloured stainless steel tubes that could be mistaken for bombs. Like I would carry more explosives than water !
Just make everyone aware and go about your lives. When you start banning folks from travelling from North Cal back to SoCal with a bottle of honey, sealed at the house it was made at- then the terrorists have won.
 
2013-06-19 04:01:18 AM

alienated: No. I wont bother with the typos, but thats the wrong way to handle it.


Your typos?
 
2013-06-19 04:08:10 AM
Wouldnt surprise me the way foriegn turrism was delt with in the '90s
 
2013-06-19 04:08:59 AM

alienated: impaler: Covering up terrorist attacks as "accidents" should be the de facto way of handling them. It nullifies the terrorist's means of cooresion.

No. I wont bother with the typos, but thats the wrong way to handle it.
Accidents happen, all day, every day.
Terroristic attacks do not. Sure- they happen almost every damn day, but they at least show some kind of planning beyond  hold my beer and watch this or hold my torah , or hold my quran.
Im not saying to watch that person in a turban parking a van behind a hotel, but if they have a van that says laundry and they roll out a cart filled with televisions- pay attention. Or if its a white person with a landscape truck that rolls up behind a shopping mall at 8 pm without even a damn lawnmower- pay attention. Is that really a UPS delivery at 9 pm ? The step van was in fact brown ... I could go on, but I hope that you get the point. That said- I use a rucksack all the time filled with coloured stainless steel tubes that could be mistaken for bombs. Like I would carry more explosives than water !
Just make everyone aware and go about your lives. When you start banning folks from travelling from North Cal back to SoCal with a bottle of honey, sealed at the house it was made at- then the terrorists have won.


Hey but I read abook it was all about that plane that exploded and it was akk a government coverup and the mai guty was gonna get info from some people but he set the meeting up for 9a am in the worldtradecenter bar on 9/11/

I forget what that crapfeast was called but it was bad and there's unfortunately to much like it out there.
 
2013-06-19 04:12:34 AM

alienated: Accidents happen, all day, every day.
Terroristic attacks do not. Sure- they happen almost every damn day, but they at least show some kind of planning beyond hold my beer and watch this or hold my torah , or hold my quran.
Im not saying to watch that person in a turban parking a van behind a hotel, but if they have a van that says laundry and they roll out a cart filled with televisions- pay attention. Or if its a white person with a landscape truck that rolls up behind a shopping mall at 8 pm without even a damn lawnmower- pay attention. Is that really a UPS delivery at 9 pm ? The step van was in fact brown ... I could go on, but I hope that you get the point. That said- I use a rucksack all the time filled with coloured stainless steel tubes that could be mistaken for bombs. Like I would carry more explosives than water !


I'm not sure if you're serious, but the people that would be able to handle the terrorist attack would be aware of the "It's just an accident, trust me" cover up. (Google "NSA surveillance" if you don't believe me). And your "pay attention" examples are far more likely to happen by chance (or regular criminal activity) than from terrorism. So you kind of made my point for me, unless you want to hold "petty theft" up to the same level as "let's launch a $trillion invasion for this act." In which case I have to say you're quite the patriot.
 
2013-06-19 04:17:30 AM
Thanks Clinton!
 
2013-06-19 04:20:06 AM

impaler: alienated: Accidents happen, all day, every day.
Terroristic attacks do not. Sure- they happen almost every damn day, but they at least show some kind of planning beyond hold my beer and watch this or hold my torah , or hold my quran.
Im not saying to watch that person in a turban parking a van behind a hotel, but if they have a van that says laundry and they roll out a cart filled with televisions- pay attention. Or if its a white person with a landscape truck that rolls up behind a shopping mall at 8 pm without even a damn lawnmower- pay attention. Is that really a UPS delivery at 9 pm ? The step van was in fact brown ... I could go on, but I hope that you get the point. That said- I use a rucksack all the time filled with coloured stainless steel tubes that could be mistaken for bombs. Like I would carry more explosives than water !

I'm not sure if you're serious, but the people that would be able to handle the terrorist attack would be aware of the "It's just an accident, trust me" cover up. (Google "NSA surveillance" if you don't believe me). And your "pay attention" examples are far more likely to happen by chance (or regular criminal activity) than from terrorism. So you kind of made my point for me, unless you want to hold "petty theft" up to the same level as "let's launch a $trillion invasion for this act." In which case I have to say you're quite the patriot.


Wait if the NSA could handle a coverup why are we discussing it?
 
2013-06-19 04:21:43 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Wait if the NSA could handle a coverup why are we discussing it?


I didn't say they could handle it. I said they would be aware of it.
 
2013-06-19 04:21:58 AM
I may have missed you're point there , dude.
 
2013-06-19 04:24:23 AM

impaler: tinfoil-hat maggie: Wait if the NSA could handle a coverup why are we discussing it?

I didn't say they could handle it. I said they would be aware of it.


So you're a truffer ; ) or is that truther?
/hell I can't remember
//Just playing ; )
 
2013-06-19 04:26:40 AM

alienated: Im not saying to watch that person in a turban parking a van behind a hotel, but if they have a van that says laundry and they roll out a cart filled with televisions- pay attention. Or if its a white person with a landscape truck that rolls up behind a shopping mall at 8 pm without even a damn lawnmower- pay attention. Is that really a UPS delivery at 9 pm ? The step van was in fact brown ... I could go on, but I hope that you get the point.


Why are televisions such a terror threat? If they were real terrorists, and they wanted the job done, they could have used a real TV van just as easily. Same with a real UPS truck. And would you really be suspicious of a landscaping truck with no lawnmower? Is it inconceivable that they could be at the mall for lunch? I know your kidding/trolling whatever but dude, step up the game a little.
 
2013-06-19 04:27:21 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: impaler: tinfoil-hat maggie: Wait if the NSA could handle a coverup why are we discussing it?

I didn't say they could handle it. I said they would be aware of it.

So you're a truffer ; ) or is that truther?
/hell I can't remember
//Just playing ; )


truffle?
 
2013-06-19 04:28:28 AM

Tellingthem: "They indicated they would elaborate more in a Wednesday media briefing."


I would expect to see/hear everything if you are going to bring something like this up. I want to see all the evidence that at least shows the previous conclusion is wrong. This is not the stuff you play conspiracy theory with and then just show some chickenwire burning.


They gotta make sure those Photoshop edits and PowerPoint graphs are peeeeerfect.
 
2013-06-19 04:44:35 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: impaler: tinfoil-hat maggie: Wait if the NSA could handle a coverup why are we discussing it?

I didn't say they could handle it. I said they would be aware of it.

So you're a truffer ; ) or is that truther?
/hell I can't remember
//Just playing ; )


I know your kidding around, but my point was if the government was going to "cover up" a terrorist attack by saying it was as an accident, the NSA would be aware of that fact, and they would still be able to prevent further attacks just as well if it wasn't covered up. (Possibly better, with all the "why aren't they saying this is a terrorist attack? I don't get it." chit-chat they would then monitor)

PS: if you're surprised by the recent "prism" program, google "echelon." I knew of it in the 90s.
 
2013-06-19 04:55:18 AM

Fista-Phobia: Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.

So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.

The flying  brick prick!


FTFY.

Oh, you meant the plane, sorry, carry on.
 
2013-06-19 04:55:43 AM

impaler: tinfoil-hat maggie: impaler: tinfoil-hat maggie: Wait if the NSA could handle a coverup why are we discussing it?

I didn't say they could handle it. I said they would be aware of it.

So you're a truffer ; ) or is that truther?
/hell I can't remember
//Just playing ; )

I know your kidding around, but my point was if the government was going to "cover up" a terrorist attack by saying it was as an accident, the NSA would be aware of that fact, and they would still be able to prevent further attacks just as well if it wasn't covered up. (Possibly better, with all the "why aren't they saying this is a terrorist attack? I don't get it." chit-chat they would then monitor)

PS: if you're surprised by the recent "prism" program, google "echelon." I knew of it in the 90s.


Lol, I was pretty sure and /or knew what was going on back in the 90's, thing is well do I even have to go into this? NO just not gonna do it. It might have been fun a bit earlier but well. A plane exploded people still write bad books on why it did. And those are the important things.
 
2013-06-19 05:15:39 AM
If the crash of TWA 800 was the work of terrorists, then why didn't any terrorist group take credit for it? As in tell what they did so there couldn't be any doubt. Usually they're more than happy to tell the world that they are the ones responsible.

The only time a terrorist act doesn't get claimed by those responsible is when a nation is the responsible party.
 
2013-06-19 05:19:52 AM

Befuddled: If the crash of TWA 800 was the work of terrorists, then why didn't any terrorist group take credit for it? As in tell what they did so there couldn't be any doubt. Usually they're more than happy to tell the world that they are the ones responsible.

The only time a terrorist act doesn't get claimed by those responsible is when a nation is the responsible party.


Are you claims were made? Are you sure that video of Osama moving his hands was as a confession?
/What do you know : )
 
2013-06-19 05:23:40 AM

Befuddled: The only time a terrorist act doesn't get claimed by those responsible is when a nation is the responsible party.


or when it's not a terrorist attack.
 
2013-06-19 05:37:51 AM

Abacus9: alienated: Im not saying to watch that person in a turban parking a van behind a hotel, but if they have a van that says laundry and they roll out a cart filled with televisions- pay attention. Or if its a white person with a landscape truck that rolls up behind a shopping mall at 8 pm without even a damn lawnmower- pay attention. Is that really a UPS delivery at 9 pm ? The step van was in fact brown ... I could go on, but I hope that you get the point.

Why are televisions such a terror threat? If they were real terrorists, and they wanted the job done, they could have used a real TV van just as easily. Same with a real UPS truck. And would you really be suspicious of a landscaping truck with no lawnmower? Is it inconceivable that they could be at the mall for lunch? I know your kidding/trolling whatever but dude, step up the game a little.


Actually- I was not kidding. Or trolling. One can pack a lot of bad things into a tv shell. I did help them write that book. Sorry.
 
2013-06-19 05:42:27 AM
Listen people.... Shrapnel damage from a missile bringing down a plane looks about as different from a fuel tank explosion as you can get. In real life missile hits are a lot less dramatic than movies... They destroy the planes ability to maintain flight, and they tumble out of the sky.

They do not typically explode in a giant Michael Bay fireball.
 
2013-06-19 05:52:14 AM

alienated: Abacus9: alienated: Im not saying to watch that person in a turban parking a van behind a hotel, but if they have a van that says laundry and they roll out a cart filled with televisions- pay attention. Or if its a white person with a landscape truck that rolls up behind a shopping mall at 8 pm without even a damn lawnmower- pay attention. Is that really a UPS delivery at 9 pm ? The step van was in fact brown ... I could go on, but I hope that you get the point.

Why are televisions such a terror threat? If they were real terrorists, and they wanted the job done, they could have used a real TV van just as easily. Same with a real UPS truck. And would you really be suspicious of a landscaping truck with no lawnmower? Is it inconceivable that they could be at the mall for lunch? I know your kidding/trolling whatever but dude, step up the game a little.

Actually- I was not kidding. Or trolling. One can pack a lot of bad things into a tv shell. I did help them write that book. Sorry.


No worries, I just thought you weren't serious. I guess you never know, maybe the stuff you mentioned really are red flags, but I'm not gonna worry about it.

Befuddled: If the crash of TWA 800 was the work of terrorists, then why didn't any terrorist group take credit for it? As in tell what they did so there couldn't be any doubt. Usually they're more than happy to tell the world that they are the ones responsible.

The only time a terrorist act doesn't get claimed by those responsible is when a nation is the responsible party.


Maybe sometimes terrorist groups take credit for things that are the work of someone else.
 
2013-06-19 06:05:48 AM

alienated: Abacus9: alienated: Im not saying to watch that person in a turban parking a van behind a hotel, but if they have a van that says laundry and they roll out a cart filled with televisions- pay attention. Or if its a white person with a landscape truck that rolls up behind a shopping mall at 8 pm without even a damn lawnmower- pay attention. Is that really a UPS delivery at 9 pm ? The step van was in fact brown ... I could go on, but I hope that you get the point.

Why are televisions such a terror threat? If they were real terrorists, and they wanted the job done, they could have used a real TV van just as easily. Same with a real UPS truck. And would you really be suspicious of a landscaping truck with no lawnmower? Is it inconceivable that they could be at the mall for lunch? I know your kidding/trolling whatever but dude, step up the game a little.

Actually- I was not kidding. Or trolling. One can pack a lot of bad things into a tv shell. I did help them write that book. Sorry.


Curious, curious. I'm assuming that's the old school 90's tv before everyone got flat screens.
 
2013-06-19 06:14:58 AM
We shot it down by accident and didn't want to pay the victims' families.

Case closed.
 
2013-06-19 06:19:36 AM

Deep Contact: We shot it down by accident and didn't want to pay the victims' families.

Case closed.


because if there is one thing the government doesn't do is spend money.

Your logic and the evidence that supports you conclusion is flawless.
 
2013-06-19 06:26:12 AM

LordJiro: mr lawson: sat1va: Oh bullshiat. I attended  a conference on crash data recorders in the mid aughts held atthe NTSB in Ashburn, Virginia. As a surprise at the end of the conference they invited a lecture hall filled with forensic engineers and other forensic scientists into the hanger for a full access tour of the TWA800 wreckage with a full detailed explanation of how it occurred, showing all the explosion damage from the central fuel tank into the luggage compartment, showing the fuel sensor rod that caused it, everything. This was before the public was allowed access to view it and we were allowed to walk around it, under it, and down the aisles inside the plane. They had virtually every part of the plane picked off the ocean floor and reassembled except the wings wouldn't have fit in the hanger. You could tell how the wings had ripped off upward, how the front section of the aircraft tore, and how the rows of seats on the upper deck blew out the right side of the fuselage when the section hit the water.

I don't think a conspiracy that crazy would allow a good 120 forensic experts from all sorts of backgrounds that kind of access with that detail of story. They even talked about the conspiracy theories, the missiles that witnesses saw, etc.

ummm...
However, the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team, stopped short of saying the plane was shot down.

Define "part".


They were on the catering crew and delivered coffee to the hangar on several occasions.
 
2013-06-19 06:30:09 AM

Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.


Last recorded altitude, 4,190 m

/false flag!
 
2013-06-19 06:38:03 AM

abhorrent1: Last recorded altitude, 4,190 m


"we just saw an explosion up ahead of us here...about 16,000 feet [4,900m] or something like that, it just went down into the water."
 
2013-06-19 06:54:10 AM

sat1va: mr lawson: sat1va: Oh bullshiat. I attended  a conference on crash data recorders in the mid aughts held atthe NTSB in Ashburn, Virginia. As a surprise at the end of the conference they invited a lecture hall filled with forensic engineers and other forensic scientists into the hanger for a full access tour of the TWA800 wreckage with a full detailed explanation of how it occurred, showing all the explosion damage from the central fuel tank into the luggage compartment, showing the fuel sensor rod that caused it, everything. This was before the public was allowed access to view it and we were allowed to walk around it, under it, and down the aisles inside the plane. They had virtually every part of the plane picked off the ocean floor and reassembled except the wings wouldn't have fit in the hanger. You could tell how the wings had ripped off upward, how the front section of the aircraft tore, and how the rows of seats on the upper deck blew out the right side of the fuselage when the section hit the water.

I don't think a conspiracy that crazy would allow a good 120 forensic experts from all sorts of backgrounds that kind of access with that detail of story. They even talked about the conspiracy theories, the missiles that witnesses saw, etc.

ummm...
However, the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team, stopped short of saying the plane was shot down.

Well most of the discussion on the tour was around the fuel tank, and everything I saw clearly showed the explosion came from inside there pushing forward into the luggage compartments, not the other way around. Since the planes central tank was virtually empty with a small puddle of fuel, and it had been sitting on the runway in high heat cooking the fuel into vapor for a few hours before take-off, they concluded that the fuel sensor rod with the corroded connection had arced and sparked the fuel vapors. This was the only known ignition source in the fuel tank and the explosion of the tank ...


I'm not an engineer, but isn't there a better way to measure your remaining gas than something using LIVE CURRENT?

I'd accept lower accuracy if I could avoid that, I'd think...heck, do car fuel tanks use similar systems?

I thought they were mechanical floats...
 
2013-06-19 06:58:27 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-19 07:13:19 AM

KidneyStone: the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team

Hmmm, doesn't sound like the usual wing nuts yelling conspiracy.  I remember when this happened and there were witnesses claiming they saw, beyond a shadow of a doubt, something fiery going distinctly up towards the aircraft.

/Not a conspiracy nut


This. My main problem with the "official" story is that they never explained why there were a few people who independently claimed to have seen a bright streak heading toward the plane before the explosion.

My guess, FWIW: the government was testing out some new missile defense system, and shot down the plane accidentally. And they can't own up to it because the new technology has to stay under wraps for reasons of national security. I'm sure those involved feel terrible about it. They'll probably declassify the information about Flight 800 after they've declassified the information about the new technology.

//Also not a conspiracy nut.
 
2013-06-19 07:14:35 AM
The official explanation for the crash of TWA flight 800 is that the witnesses who were there are all idiots.
 
2013-06-19 07:15:54 AM

unlikely: I heard it was the same Israeli crew that sank the Liberty.


I heard it was the same Cuban revolutionaries that sunk the Maine.
 
2013-06-19 07:36:20 AM
Thanks Obama, er, Bush, er, Clinton, er Hillary Clinton!
 
2013-06-19 07:41:10 AM
 
2013-06-19 07:42:58 AM
While of interest to aircraft engineers, I'm not really sure why anyone else would care about this.
 
2013-06-19 07:43:02 AM
You know, some of you trolls really, really should go fark yourselves.

And for those actually believing conspiracy theories (which I have a suspicion might be...  zero people here), by posting in this thread you're being added to the government's list.
 
2013-06-19 07:46:35 AM

sat1va: Oh bullshiat. I attended  a conference on crash data recorders in the mid aughts held atthe NTSB in Ashburn, Virginia. As a surprise at the end of the conference they invited a lecture hall filled with forensic engineers and other forensic scientists into the hanger for a full access tour of the TWA800 wreckage with a full detailed explanation of how it occurred, showing all the explosion damage from the central fuel tank into the luggage compartment, showing the fuel sensor rod that caused it, everything. This was before the public was allowed access to view it and we were allowed to walk around it, under it, and down the aisles inside the plane. They had virtually every part of the plane picked off the ocean floor and reassembled except the wings wouldn't have fit in the hanger. You could tell how the wings had ripped off upward, how the front section of the aircraft tore, and how the rows of seats on the upper deck blew out the right side of the fuselage when the section hit the water.

I don't think a conspiracy that crazy would allow a good 120 forensic experts from all sorts of backgrounds that kind of access with that detail of story. They even talked about the conspiracy theories, the missiles that witnesses saw, etc.


Obviously they were all in on it.  That is the only logical explanation*

Seriously though:  my father was a career USAF aircraft mechanic and aircrew chief with decades of
experience with Boeing aircraft, and he knew exactly what had happened the minute he saw the news
reports of the explosion, since he was well acquainted with SOP of fuel management on such planes
and the wiring fault was something that had been known about for a long time.  This particular event was
my biggest educational moment about how conspiracy nutters will not be swayed from their firmly held
beliefs with any amount of evidence.

*If you have no idea what the word 'logical' means
 
2013-06-19 07:48:11 AM

DjangoStonereaver: This particular event was
my biggest educational moment about how conspiracy nutters will not be swayed from their firmly held
beliefs with any amount of evidence.


Conspiracies never die. They just get bigger.
 
2013-06-19 07:52:32 AM

Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.

So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.


Yea but the plane was still climbing from taking off and nowhere near that max range.

Either way, if it was a missile it wouldn't have looked like what witnesses said they saw and no one has claimed it. I'd much rather trust the official explanation since it actually makes sense.
 
2013-06-19 07:52:55 AM
So, the investigators come out to expose the coverup and the thread is full of people who still don't believe it. Now we know why we're never going to fix the problems plaguing the world today. Like I said before, the government (these guys) could say it was a coverup and most morons still won't believe it. Incredible, it is.
 
2013-06-19 07:57:54 AM
The government wouldn't lie to us, only conspiracy nuts think otherwise.

/i'm one of them now because humans aren't worth fighting for
 
2013-06-19 07:58:47 AM

dywed88: duffblue: MaudlinMutantMollusk: WhoopAssWayne: When the tanks are full of fuel and with very little air, how does it explode? If you take a gallon of jet fuel in a gallon tank, toss in a lit cigarette and close the cap, would you expect it to explode? I'm not a conspiracy guy in any way, I just do not understand where the oxidizer is coming from here - initially I mean, before the breakup.

IIRC, the midship tank where the short occurred was empty, according to the official explanation

/but there were still "fumes" present

Why would a fuel tank be empty on a trans-Atlantic flight? Not to sound like a wacko but that seems weird. What is the range on the 747 with that tank empty?

On a global scale, New York and Paris are fairly close. There just happens to be a large ocean in the middle. A flight from San Diego to Maine would be a similar distance. In fact, fully fuelled 747 could fly New York to Paris and back again, with fuel to spare.


Given how Boeing aircraft manage their fuel, it is entirely possible that the main fuel tank could very well
have been nearly empty just after takeoff.

As I recall from what my father (a USAF mechanic and long time crew chief for on Boeing KC-135s, which
use the same sort of fuel system as this plane) told me:  the main fuel tanks that feed on Boeing aircraft
are in the belly of the plane.  There are fuel tanks in the wings that are physically near the engines, but
the fuel in these tanks must be pumped into the main tank to keep the plane going.

A fully laden 747-100 requres a LOT of fuel to take off; something like 3/4 of the fuel in the main tank or
somesuch absurdly large (to us untrained people) amount, and once the plane was fully in the air the first
job of the aircrew (probably the flight engineer) is to get the pumps going to move fuel from the wing tanks
into the main tank.

Unfortunately, there was a known manufacturing fault at the time with the main wiring trunk on Boeing
aircraft that could cause the occasional spark that could ignite the fuel/air mixture in the nearby main
fuel tank if the tank was very low, as it would be just after takeoff and before it was refilled.  My father
pegged the cause within minutes of seeing the first news reports.
 
2013-06-19 08:14:59 AM

TomD9938: FTA : the cause of the explosion was due to an explosion in the gas tank caused by a short circuit.



Obviously false. The aircraft isn't gas powered; they use jet-A or jet-A1.

/Obama did it
 
2013-06-19 08:17:01 AM

DjangoStonereaver: Given how Boeing aircraft manage their fuel, it is entirely possible that the main fuel tank could very well
have been nearly empty just after takeoff.


Not doubting this, but given the stresses on the wings during takeoff, wouldn't those be the tanks you'd prefer to have empty? Or does being filled with fuel make the wings more rigid?
 
2013-06-19 08:18:40 AM

Fista-Phobia: However it happened, it would suck to be in the back half of the plane at 600 mph+ minus the cockpit.


When the cockpit is minus at speed, it sucks to be anywhere in that plane. Including the cockpit.
 
2013-06-19 08:18:44 AM

tennessee.hillbilly: Don't forget the eyewitnesses on the beach.



img.fark.net

They weren't close enough to see.
 
2013-06-19 08:19:14 AM
. . . did not cause the crash," reads a statement by the producers of the film, which will debut on cable network EPIX next month. "

Ah, there it is.
it's a money shot for some chiselers out to make a cheezy buck.
 
2013-06-19 08:22:37 AM

AndreMA: DjangoStonereaver: Given how Boeing aircraft manage their fuel, it is entirely possible that the main fuel tank could very well
have been nearly empty just after takeoff.

Not doubting this, but given the stresses on the wings during takeoff, wouldn't those be the tanks you'd prefer to have empty? Or does being filled with fuel make the wings more rigid?


Bear in mind that my father was a mechanic, not an engineer (damn it Jim!), but as I recall his explanation
having the fuel feed from the main tanks was more a matter of balance and keeping a stable center of
gravity.  I never really asked, but now that you mention it having the wing tanks (which, ISTR, are plastic
bladders fitted in between the spars and ribs of the wing structure) as full as possible during takeoff would
give the wings a bit of strengh.

I can't really say I asked much about that, though, since I am not an aeronatical engineer.  I just play one
on Fark in very narrowly defined sets of circumstances.
 
2013-06-19 08:22:37 AM

AndreMA: DjangoStonereaver: Given how Boeing aircraft manage their fuel, it is entirely possible that the main fuel tank could very well
have been nearly empty just after takeoff.

Not doubting this, but given the stresses on the wings during takeoff, wouldn't those be the tanks you'd prefer to have empty? Or does being filled with fuel make the wings more rigid?


...that 3/4 figure does seem high, but as you note I'm untrained. The "main" tank is probably smaller than most would think in order to maximize usable cargo space. But why wouldn't they be pumping from the wing tanks the entire time (into the belly tank(s))? I'm sure the pumps can keep up with consumption and not be a distraction to the flight deck crew?
 
2013-06-19 08:29:15 AM

AndreMA: AndreMA: DjangoStonereaver: Given how Boeing aircraft manage their fuel, it is entirely possible that the main fuel tank could very well
have been nearly empty just after takeoff.

Not doubting this, but given the stresses on the wings during takeoff, wouldn't those be the tanks you'd prefer to have empty? Or does being filled with fuel make the wings more rigid?

...that 3/4 figure does seem high, but as you note I'm untrained. The "main" tank is probably smaller than most would think in order to maximize usable cargo space. But why wouldn't they be pumping from the wing tanks the entire time (into the belly tank(s))? I'm sure the pumps can keep up with consumption and not be a distraction to the flight deck crew?


As I recall my father telling it, after takeoff they would move as much of the fuel from the wings into the
main tank as possible, as quickly as possible, to maintain the back-pressure on the fuel going to the
engines, and periodically through the flight whenever the main tank level dropped below a certain point
they would move more fuel from the wings.  He likened it to stopping at the gas station, only it was a
question of the plane refueling itself.

This was, of course, 17 years ago, but while my father had many faults, if there was one thing at which he
was competent (divinely gifted, though I am biased) it was as a mechanic, and especially as a crew chief on
KC-135 tankers.  He knew them inside and out, and the only people who knew them better probably
worked for Boeing.
 
2013-06-19 08:29:35 AM

Petit_Merdeux: tennessee.hillbilly: Don't forget the eyewitnesses on the beach.


[img.fark.net image 400x275]

They weren't close enough to see.


Or otherwise occupied
 
2013-06-19 08:32:50 AM
You folks do know when one or more Chemtrail canisters become destabilized and the contents are exposed to too much carbon dioxide too quickly things can get rather "unsettled" and a large explosion can occur?  As anyone who has done basic research can tell you, the actual crew of the Challenger were rescued from a NASA "education camp" by French "Intelligence" and were being flown to Paris where it was expected they would blow the whistle on Challenger hoax.  Obviously NASA and the CIA could not have this and well they took care of things.

/true but uncool story bro....
 
2013-06-19 08:34:34 AM
Tards gonna tard.
 
2013-06-19 08:41:12 AM

alienated: Abacus9: alienated: Im not saying to watch that person in a turban parking a van behind a hotel, but if they have a van that says laundry and they roll out a cart filled with televisions- pay attention. Or if its a white person with a landscape truck that rolls up behind a shopping mall at 8 pm without even a damn lawnmower- pay attention. Is that really a UPS delivery at 9 pm ? The step van was in fact brown ... I could go on, but I hope that you get the point.

Why are televisions such a terror threat? If they were real terrorists, and they wanted the job done, they could have used a real TV van just as easily. Same with a real UPS truck. And would you really be suspicious of a landscaping truck with no lawnmower? Is it inconceivable that they could be at the mall for lunch? I know your kidding/trolling whatever but dude, step up the game a little.

Actually- I was not kidding. Or trolling. One can pack a lot of bad things into a tv shell. I did help them write that book. Sorry.


Oh yeah you could pack a lot of fun into a tube-style TV. Have to be more creative with a flat panel, something with detcord and a thin layer of primary explosive with ball bearings inside for a sort of giant claymore mine.

/knock knock
 
2013-06-19 08:50:52 AM

JonnyG: So, the investigators come out to expose the coverup and the thread is full of people who still don't believe it


no. some people making a movie said some other people, we don't know their names, said there is a cover up and a gag order(that apparently is no longer in effect).

JonnyG: Like I said before, the government (these guys) could say it was a coverup and most morons still won't believe it. Incredible, it is.


what's incredible is that some people will take a press release for a movie as fact with zero evidence to support it, and then turn around and call other people morons for not believing it at face value.
 
2013-06-19 08:52:31 AM
What happened to the video of the crash. It used to be on the web.
 
2013-06-19 09:02:40 AM

digistil: What's Alex Jones's take on this?


Obama.

On a side note, for an airline company that has been out of business for over a decade, I saw this file footage used in a report about flying (completely unrelated to TWA).  I had to rewind and take a picture just to confirm that, no, I wasn't going crazy and, yes, the news was using old stock footage of an airline that hasn't flown since 2001.

i1059.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-19 09:03:51 AM

Tat'dGreaser: Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Yea but the plane was still climbing from taking off and nowhere near that max range.


I think he meant the plane's altitude at the time of the event.  The 747-100 would typically cruise at well over twice that altitude.
 
2013-06-19 09:05:11 AM

Deep Contact: We shot it down by accident and didn't want to pay the victims' families.

Case closed.


In 1988 the US shot down Iran Air flight 655, claiming it was an accident.  The shooting was admitted immediately, though the US first tried to claim the plane was diving and appeared to be attacking.  They soon gave up the diving and attacking story.  Eventually the US paid Iran compensation for the loss of the victims and the plane.
 
2013-06-19 09:11:48 AM

seadoo2006: On a side note, for an airline company that has been out of business for over a decade, I saw this file footage used in a report about flying (completely unrelated to TWA). I had to rewind and take a picture just to confirm that, no, I wasn't going crazy and, yes, the news was using old stock footage of an airline that hasn't flown since 2001.


I'm sure it would fall under fair use to use stock footage of a currently operating carrier, but TWA is still a household name and can be used with less concern about potential litigation if they inadvertently imply something damaging about them.
 
2013-06-19 09:12:25 AM

uselessgit: Since Clinton was in office at the time, who knows what he would have done to silence them.


i.cdn.turner.com
 
2013-06-19 09:13:01 AM

ArcadianRefugee: gunsmack: Director should look up the difference between ordinance and ordnance.

Was coming here to say the same.


Thirded.  And I'm very unclear on how they can say it was external ordnance, but won't say it was shot down.

Is that supposed to be a teaser?

/not teased
 
2013-06-19 09:17:11 AM

OrangeSnapper: Deep Contact: We shot it down by accident and didn't want to pay the victims' families.

Case closed.

In 1988 the US shot down Iran Air flight 655, claiming it was an accident.  The shooting was admitted immediately, though the US first tried to claim the plane was diving and appeared to be attacking.  They soon gave up the diving and attacking story.  Eventually the US paid Iran compensation for the loss of the victims and the plane.


The US never admitted fault nor apologized either ... and we're the ones pissed at Iran for some reason?

I guess killing 290 Iranians, including 66 children and 16 crew, was just payback for them keeping 52 Americans hostage for 444 days ...

Rational move, Mr. Reagan, rational move.
 
2013-06-19 09:25:10 AM

Ricardo Klement: JohnAnnArbor: Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.

So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.

He flew F-102s.....

That's what's so brilliant about the plan.  You'd never suspect him.


And that's why I have you favorited.
 
2013-06-19 09:33:39 AM
Quick, back to Usenet!!!! We can continue the thread from 17 years ago!
 
2013-06-19 09:36:28 AM

uselessgit: I recall the main conspiracy theory was that an Ageis ship was parked off the coast and was using planes leaving JFK or what ever airport it was, and targeting them with radar, as a training thing. Something went wrong and a missile launched on the plane. They say something similar happened when the Iranian jet liner was shot down a few years before that by an Ageis system.The missile boat crews are not huge, so it could be a few navy folks to make disappear as damage control. Since Clinton was in office at the time, who knows what he would have done to silence them.


Let them blow him?
Give them Rhodes Scholarships?
Overwhelm them with his famed charisma?
Force-choke them? No, wait, that's Darth Barack's secret power.

Give us a hint!
 
2013-06-19 09:36:47 AM

Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.

So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.


Generally your comment is correct however in details you are wrong on all your points.
- That is Stingers published range.  I don't know what the real range is but it is not uncommon for the US military to fudge numbers down by 10% or more.  Not to mention it could have been one of the several similar Commie shoulder fired IR missiles that could possibly have longer range.  That said, it would be near impossibly hard to hit something that high going that fast with ANY dinky MANPADS.
- Sorry to say this but SM-3 uses a separating kinetic interceptor, that only works above the atmosphere because of it's exposed optics.  No explosives on board.  I suppose one of the SM-2 variates might work, but again we run into the whole "The chances of a keeping a secret goes down by 1/n! (that is a factorial) where n is the number of people that know"  You fire one of those puppies and everyone on board knows it,not to mention any near by ship that has a Radar, the supply Sargent that has to order a new multi-million dollar missile, and the dock workers that have to load an new one, and the missile contractor's stock holders that wonder where that extra few million on the annual report came from.
- Well I suppose it could have been George.  According to the cable news networks, he is a psychotic megalomaniac... but I doubt you could find a serviceable F-4 or F-102 (his preferred weapon of choice)
 
2013-06-19 09:37:51 AM

alienated: duffblue: Why would a fuel tank be empty on a trans-Atlantic flight?

I have you farkied as a fumbduck, for good reason. Commercial aircraft never take on more fuel than they need. Its a weight / safety issue. Now, if that plan was a non-stop from NY to Hong Kong- damn skippy that heavy metal bird would have been topped off. NY to Paris ? yeah- not so much


Bit harsh, for someone just asking a question about a technical point. So he's not a commercial airline pilot, so what? Civilization will survive.
 
2013-06-19 09:38:21 AM

sat1va: digistil: What's Alex Jones's take on this?

Lizard people.


It flew into a chemtrail. Duh. Stupid sheeple, go back to sleep.
 
2013-06-19 09:46:41 AM

impaler: If this scandal is true, the powers that be decided that the sheeple will be more comfortable with aircraft that can spontaneously explode versus an aircraft was accidentally shot down by the military, or intentionally shot down by terrorists.

Given the past 12 years, I would applaud a government that would cover up a terrorist attack as an "accident" seeing how those "sheeple" become batshat insane over a deliberate attack. When you point out how insignificant the odds are of dieing in an attack, they fly off the handle saying your competence in statistics is treason.

They can handle 300 people dieing in an "accident" that can be fixed by some unseen amount of money on some unseen amount of improvement, but if it was "terrorism"! We're talking about a $trillion invasion.

Covering up terrorist attacks as "accidents" should be the de facto way of handling them. It nullifies the terrorist's means of cooresion.


That's one of the most brilliant things I've ever heard. It's completely unethical, but it's a lot better IMO than what we're doing.
 
2013-06-19 09:49:25 AM
I saw this on the news this morning.  And I still don't know what's going on.

Here are the facts:
1.  The plane exploded.
2.  It then crashed.
3.  Everyone on board is dead.

So these "whistle blowers" come out to say, "well, the official explanation isn't true."  And then offer no other plausable explanation.

Thanks for wasting our time, guys.
 
2013-06-19 09:51:15 AM

PunkRockLawyer: My guess, FWIW: the government was testing out some new missile defense system, and shot down the plane accidentally. And they can't own up to it because the new technology has to stay under wraps for reasons of national security. I'm sure those involved feel terrible about it. They'll probably declassify the information about Flight 800 after they've declassified the information about the new technology.


How many people are in on this conspiracy? It must include every single person involved with the missile testing, including every single sailor on the ship from which it was fired. It must include every single person (save, perhaps, the Heroic Six) involved in the subsequent investigation, whether employed by the NTSB or consulted by them. It probably has to include air traffic control staff: those who were watching the plane on radar and those who subsequently had to destroy or hide the radar records.

So, what's the total - a thousand? two thousand? five thousand? All willing to cover up a massive loss of civilian life at the hands of the government.
 
2013-06-19 09:53:21 AM

Tat'dGreaser: Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.

So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.

Yea but the plane was still climbing from taking off and nowhere near that max range.

Either way, if it was a missile it wouldn't have looked like what witnesses said they saw and no one has claimed it. I'd much rather trust the official explanation since it actually makes sense.


Define "nowhere near"?  As someone upthread said, its last reported altitude was over 4100m - I'm too lazy to go look up how frequently it reports, how fast it was climbing, and how long after the last report it was hit.
 
2013-06-19 09:54:25 AM

AndreMA: Not doubting this, but given the stresses on the wings during takeoff, wouldn't those be the tanks you'd prefer to have empty? Or does being filled with fuel make the wings more rigid?


Keeping the fuel in the wings is a good idea: it reduces the forces and stresses at the wing-fuselage join.
 
2013-06-19 09:54:35 AM

Broom: Ricardo Klement: JohnAnnArbor: Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.

So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.

He flew F-102s.....

That's what's so brilliant about the plan.  You'd never suspect him.

And that's why I have you favorited.


I didn't think anyone had me favorited, I am on here so infrequently.
 
2013-06-19 09:57:40 AM

MonoChango: Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.

So it had to have been George W. Bush in an F-4.

Generally your comment is correct however in details you are wrong on all your points.
- That is Stingers published range.  I don't know what the real range is but it is not uncommon for the US military to fudge numbers down by 10% or more.  Not to mention it could have been one of the several similar Commie shoulder fired IR missiles that could possibly have longer range.  That said, it would be near impossibly hard to hit something that high going that fast with ANY dinky MANPADS.
- Sorry to say this but SM-3 uses a separating kinetic interceptor, that only works above the atmosphere because of it's exposed optics.  No explosives on board.  I suppose one of the SM-2 variates might work, but again we run into the whole "The chances of a keeping a secret goes down by 1/n! (that is a factorial) where n is the number of people that know"  You fire one of those puppies and everyone on board knows it,not to mention any near by ship that has a Radar, the supply Sargent that has to order a new multi-million dollar missile, and the dock workers that have to load an new one, and the missile contractor's stock holders that wonder where that extra few million on the annual report came from.
- Well I suppose it could have been George.  According to the cable news networks, he is a psychotic megalomaniac... but I doubt you could find a serviceable F-4 or F-102 (his preferred weapon of choice)


I'd rather be right in the conclusion and wrong in the details than the other way around.  (Not that either is particularly admirable.)
 
2013-06-19 09:59:58 AM
The image in the article does NOT look like an aircraft that suffered an internal explosion.

But I'm just a mechanical engineering consultant, not a demolitions expert so I will defer...
 
2013-06-19 10:01:54 AM

bin_smokin: The image in the article does NOT look like an aircraft that suffered an internal explosion.


How many such aircraft have you seen, though? I haven't seen any.
 
2013-06-19 10:07:07 AM

bin_smokin: The image in the article does NOT look like an aircraft that suffered an internal explosion.


what does an aircraft that suffered an internal explosion look like?
 
2013-06-19 10:07:31 AM
There were 3 attack submarines in the area at the time. I believe the only people who would know about this are the fire control officer and captain. The rest have other duties and there are no windows.

The captain and exec were relieved of command of one of the subs.
 
2013-06-19 10:07:52 AM

Noctusxx: I do believe that 2013 will be known as "The Year The People Talking To Me Through My Tin-Foil Hat Were right!"

Really all we need now is the alien bodies from Roswell and the Second CIA shooter from the Grassy Knoll to surface and we will have a clean sweep!


You left out who put flouride in water and chemicals in KFC to make you crave for it nightly!
 
2013-06-19 10:11:39 AM

Deep Contact: There were 3 attack submarines in the area at the time. I believe the only people who would know about this are the fire control officer and captain. The rest have other duties and there are no windows.

The captain and exec were relieved of command of one of the subs.


If someone can't find their unsubstantiated bullshiat, I think I just found it.
 
2013-06-19 10:14:01 AM
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 10:17:32 AM

Deep Contact: There were 3 attack submarines in the area at the time. I believe the only people who would know about this are the fire control officer and captain. The rest have other duties and there are no windows.

The captain and exec were relieved of command of one of the subs.


Now is a submarine going to shoot down an aircraft?
 
2013-06-19 10:18:23 AM
There's a very logical explanation for the people who claimed to have seen a missile heading towards the plane:
they didn't. Pure and simple.
There's a phenomena (I can't remember the name of it) where people's imaginations fill in the gaps, and it's fairly random in the way it works when there's more than one explanation. Police find this a lot, where somebody hear's a car crash, turns to look at it, and if they see something apparent (cars are posed in a way that has a defined narrative), they will frequently claim to have actually seen the accident occur,

The easiest way to look at it is to ask yourself: why would so many people be watching a plane in flight? It's a valid question. All these eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen a missile streaking towards the 747 had to have looked up for some reason. What was that reason? It exploded. For the eyewitnesses (who are...miles away?), there's a long time gap between the explosion happening, the sound reaching the witness, the witness placing the source of the sound, then seeing the missile that caused the explosion flying through the air. That's the important part to think of.

Now, if you have an explanation for why so many people would be watching a random jet flying through the air, at the exact moment that a missile strikes it, I'm all ears.
 
2013-06-19 10:19:23 AM

LordJiro: mr lawson: sat1va: Oh bullshiat. I attended  a conference on crash data recorders in the mid aughts held atthe NTSB in Ashburn, Virginia. As a surprise at the end of the conference they invited a lecture hall filled with forensic engineers and other forensic scientists into the hanger for a full access tour of the TWA800 wreckage with a full detailed explanation of how it occurred, showing all the explosion damage from the central fuel tank into the luggage compartment, showing the fuel sensor rod that caused it, everything. This was before the public was allowed access to view it and we were allowed to walk around it, under it, and down the aisles inside the plane. They had virtually every part of the plane picked off the ocean floor and reassembled except the wings wouldn't have fit in the hanger. You could tell how the wings had ripped off upward, how the front section of the aircraft tore, and how the rows of seats on the upper deck blew out the right side of the fuselage when the section hit the water.

I don't think a conspiracy that crazy would allow a good 120 forensic experts from all sorts of backgrounds that kind of access with that detail of story. They even talked about the conspiracy theories, the missiles that witnesses saw, etc.

ummm...
However, the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team, stopped short of saying the plane was shot down.

Define "part".


They include Hank Hughes, who served as a senior accident investigator with the NTSB and helped reconstruct the aircraft. Others include Bob Young, a TWA investigator who participated in the investigation, and Jim Speer, an accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association.
 
2013-06-19 10:20:15 AM

log_jammin: mr lawson: However, the six whistleblowers, all part of the original investigation team, stopped short of saying the plane was shot down.

what are their names and what role did the have in the investigation?


They include Hank Hughes, who served as a senior accident investigator with the NTSB and helped reconstruct the aircraft. Others include Bob Young, a TWA investigator who participated in the investigation, and Jim Speer, an accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association.
 
2013-06-19 10:27:49 AM

jimmiejaz: They include Hank Hughes, who served as a senior accident investigator with the NTSB and helped reconstruct the aircraft.


well apparently he didn't have a gag order against him

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryJK-QUr2uU
 
2013-06-19 10:30:34 AM

Ricardo Klement: Define "nowhere near"?


Define "Plane vertical range"?  At first I thought you meant "altitude at time of event", but now it seems as though you mean "service ceiling."
 
2013-06-19 10:38:48 AM

seadoo2006: OrangeSnapper: Deep Contact: We shot it down by accident and didn't want to pay the victims' families.

Case closed.

In 1988 the US shot down Iran Air flight 655, claiming it was an accident.  The shooting was admitted immediately, though the US first tried to claim the plane was diving and appeared to be attacking.  They soon gave up the diving and attacking story.  Eventually the US paid Iran compensation for the loss of the victims and the plane.

The US never admitted fault nor apologized either ... and we're the ones pissed at Iran for some reason?

I guess killing 290 Iranians, including 66 children and 16 crew, was just payback for them keeping 52 Americans hostage for 444 days ...

Rational move, Mr. Reagan, rational move.


We have messed up Iran a lot over the last century and the current group of whacky leaders are pretty much our fault. In this case, however, the Iranians need to shoulder some blame. They attacked a guided missile cruiser with gun boats and then didn't bother to vector civilian air traffic away from the battle area.
 
2013-06-19 10:42:41 AM

bin_smokin: The image in the article does NOT look like an aircraft that suffered an internal explosion.

But I'm just a mechanical engineering consultant, not a demolitions expert so I will defer...


img.fark.net
Study it out!

/Not really directed at you in particular, more the thread at large.
 
2013-06-19 10:43:25 AM

MonoChango: Deep Contact: There were 3 attack submarines in the area at the time. I believe the only people who would know about this are the fire control officer and captain. The rest have other duties and there are no windows.

The captain and exec were relieved of command of one of the subs.

Now is a submarine going to shoot down an aircraft?


It releases the sharks with the frickin' laser beams on their heads.  OBVIOUSLY.
 
2013-06-19 10:49:55 AM

Deep Contact: There were 3 attack submarines in the area at the time. I believe the only people who would know about this are the fire control officer and captain. The rest have other duties and there are no windows.

The captain and exec were relieved of command of one of the subs.


Oh yeah, it would only take two people to launch a missile from a sub. None of the other crew would need to operate the radar to acquire a target or bring the sub to launch depth. No one would hear the missile launch in a metal tube or notice an empty vertical launch tube or would have to load a torpedo tube. Also, none of the crew would notice that they were deploying an unannounced weapon system that would still be secret 17 years later.
 
2013-06-19 10:58:08 AM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-19 11:21:23 AM

dywed88: duffblue: MaudlinMutantMollusk: WhoopAssWayne: When the tanks are full of fuel and with very little air, how does it explode? If you take a gallon of jet fuel in a gallon tank, toss in a lit cigarette and close the cap, would you expect it to explode? I'm not a conspiracy guy in any way, I just do not understand where the oxidizer is coming from here - initially I mean, before the breakup.

IIRC, the midship tank where the short occurred was empty, according to the official explanation

/but there were still "fumes" present

Why would a fuel tank be empty on a trans-Atlantic flight? Not to sound like a wacko but that seems weird. What is the range on the 747 with that tank empty?

On a global scale, New York and Paris are fairly close. There just happens to be a large ocean in the middle. A flight from San Diego to Maine would be a similar distance. In fact, fully fuelled 747 could fly New York to Paris and back again, with fuel to spare.


Thanks for answering my question and not being a dick about it!
 
2013-06-19 11:26:01 AM
I am seeing the plane exploded at 16,000 feet.  That's pretty high up there for a rocket launcher sitting on a terrorist's shoulder to reach.
 
2013-06-19 12:39:51 PM
These "whistleblowers" are simply traitors. They have damaged the security of this nation. Don't you know how many terrorists we've stopped by shooting down the occasional jet?
 
2013-06-19 01:59:50 PM

alienated: I could kill for a Molson right now. That said- really- try a La Fin du Monde, but Maudite is much better


And Terrible.
 
2013-06-19 02:15:03 PM

duffblue: What is the range on the 747 with that tank empty?


About 75 miles.
 
2013-06-19 02:37:25 PM
At least this one can't be blamed on Obama.

Back then, all he was doing was organizing communities, and smoking weed and Rahm Emanuel.
 
2013-06-19 02:42:24 PM

Deep Contact: There were 3 attack submarines in the area at the time. I believe the only people who would know about this are the fire control officer and captain. The rest have other duties and there are no windows.

The captain and exec were relieved of command of one of the subs.


You think a sub can launch ANYTHING without the entire boat being aware of it?
 
2013-06-19 02:45:56 PM

sat1va: digistil: What's Alex Jones's take on this?

Lizard people.


Don't you mean David Icke?

I wonder if the late William Cooper had a take on this.  That guy knew what he was talking about.
 
2013-06-19 02:46:40 PM

Thunderboy: Ricardo Klement: Define "nowhere near"?

Define "Plane vertical range"?  At first I thought you meant "altitude at time of event", but now it seems as though you mean "service ceiling."


I did mean altitude of event.  I was just willing, for the sake of argument, use the lower number someone used, which is hardly "nowhere near".  And that's altitude.  The slant-range is going to be longer.

/A service ceiling of 4900m?  Maybe some helicopters...
 
2013-06-19 03:10:38 PM

Ricardo Klement: Deep Contact: There were 3 attack submarines in the area at the time. I believe the only people who would know about this are the fire control officer and captain. The rest have other duties and there are no windows.

The captain and exec were relieved of command of one of the subs.

You think a sub can launch ANYTHING without the entire boat being aware of it?


I think the boat knows everything.
 
2013-06-19 04:02:00 PM

Phinn: At least this one can't be blamed on Obama.


Oh, I think they'll find a way:

media.tumblr.com

/Someone needs to photoshop an MiB Neuralizer in his hand.....
 
2013-06-19 04:42:29 PM

Ricardo Klement: Thunderboy: Ricardo Klement: Define "nowhere near"?

Define "Plane vertical range"?  At first I thought you meant "altitude at time of event", but now it seems as though you mean "service ceiling."

I did mean altitude of event.  I was just willing, for the sake of argument, use the lower number someone used, which is hardly "nowhere near".  And that's altitude.  The slant-range is going to be longer.

/A service ceiling of 4900m?  Maybe some helicopters...


Ah, OK.  That's what I thought.  Someone described it as "max range", but you did not address that comment in your reply, so I was starting to wonder.
 
2013-06-19 04:50:03 PM

Thunderboy: Ricardo Klement: Thunderboy: Ricardo Klement: Define "nowhere near"?

Define "Plane vertical range"?  At first I thought you meant "altitude at time of event", but now it seems as though you mean "service ceiling."

I did mean altitude of event.  I was just willing, for the sake of argument, use the lower number someone used, which is hardly "nowhere near".  And that's altitude.  The slant-range is going to be longer.

/A service ceiling of 4900m?  Maybe some helicopters...

Ah, OK.  That's what I thought.  Someone described it as "max range", but you did not address that comment in your reply, so I was starting to wonder.


I was going to ask if you thought I could be that stupid, but then I remembered this is fark and demonstrably some people ARE that stupid.
 
2013-06-19 07:56:53 PM

WhoopAssWayne: When the tanks are full of fuel and with very little air, how does it explode? If you take a gallon of jet fuel in a gallon tank, toss in a lit cigarette and close the cap, would you expect it to explode? I'm not a conspiracy guy in any way, I just do not understand where the oxidizer is coming from here - initially I mean, before the breakup.


Jet fuel is closer to kerosene or Diesel, it would take more than a cigarette butt to touch it off.
 
2013-06-19 08:48:09 PM
say they were never allowed to get at the truth

It would be nice if they expanded on that. It sounds like the kind of thing you toss out there when you're selling a conspiracy.
 
2013-06-20 06:35:05 AM

Deep Contact: There were 3 attack submarines in the area at the time. I believe the only people who would know about this are the fire control officer and captain. The rest have other duties and there are no windows.


Missiles fire silently/ Nobody counts them? Nobody has to load replacements?
 
2013-06-20 06:43:58 AM

Usurper4: There's a phenomena (I can't remember the name of it) where people's imaginations fill in the gaps, and it's fairly random in the way it works when there's more than one explanation.


I read an article by AAIB (Air Accident Investigation Board, UK) people about the unreliability of eye-witness testimony. It related to a helicopter accident in which the pilot said x (which would have exonerated him) but numerous eye witnesses in a group said y (which would have blamed him). Some time later a completely independent eyewitness turned up who also said x. The witnesses in a group had, naturally, talked about what they saw and without meaning to they had all changed their recollections to match that discussion.

Some time after that I witnessed a serious glider accident (complete destruction of a brand new Discus, pilot survived) and did what the AAIB article said to do: don't talk to anyone, and as soon as possible write down what you saw, not what you think you saw happening. So you don't say "I saw a plane in a spin at the end of the airfield" ("Objected to as calling for a conclusion of the witness" snapped Perry Mason. "Objection sustained" said the judge. Hamilton Burger glared angrily.) you say "I saw the plane in a nose up attitude with the wing nearly vertical and the tops of them towards me."

TL:DR; Eye witness testimony is unreliable because they will say what they think happened, not what they saw happening.
 
2013-06-20 06:49:56 AM

PunGent: I'm not an engineer, but isn't there a better way to measure your remaining gas than something using LIVE CURRENT?

I'd accept lower accuracy if I could avoid that, I'd think...heck, do car fuel tanks use similar systems?

I thought they were mechanical floats...


Measuring the level of a liquid as it slops around in a tank is not easy, and there are no really reliable systems for doing it. Cars use float gauges, and the float operates a variable resistor in the tank, often submerged in petrol. That's not as dangerous as it sounds: the upper explosive limit for petrol is about 8% and the vapour concentration above the liquid in the liquid in the tank is far, far higher than that.
 
2013-06-20 07:33:08 AM

orbister: TL:DR; Eye witness testimony is unreliable because they will say what they think happened, not what they saw happening.


yup.

I got t-boned at an intersection a couple of years ago. I told everyone how the impact spun my truck around almost 3 times. A couple of days later when I drove by the same intersection I could see the tire marks on the highway and realized how full of shiat I had been. I felt bad enough about it that I felt obligated to point out to everyone I talked to that I had been wrong.

But at the time I would have swore that's what happened.
 
2013-06-20 09:10:39 AM

Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.


This and thread over.

The only shipborne weapons really capable of shooting it down and basically blowing it apart in the sky would be large area defense missiles.  At the time, that would have been the American Standard series, French Mascurca, British Sea Dart, or Russian S-300.  None of those are carried on anything smaller than a destroyer, so you're talking about several hundred witnesses.

It's possible for a point defense missile like the Sea Sparrow to make the shot, but the aircraft would have practically had to overfly the launch platform, they're also only mounted on large warships (so again many witnesses), and they've got relatively small warheads.  The odds of an instant catastrophic destruction would be very low.  KAL-007 nearly survived being hit by two weapons of similar power.

MANPADs aren't even worth discussing.  They don't have the range to have even hit it.  If they had been in range and hit it, they lacked the warhead to bring it down.  The only successful use of MANPADS against civilian aircraft have been against low and slow targets (landing or taking off).  They're hell on helicopters but simply aren't very effective against jets.

The tin foil hats can try all they want but a missile didn't  do it.
 
2013-06-20 09:22:43 AM

WhoopAssWayne: When the tanks are full of fuel and with very little air, how does it explode? If you take a gallon of jet fuel in a gallon tank, toss in a lit cigarette and close the cap, would you expect it to explode? I'm not a conspiracy guy in any way, I just do not understand where the oxidizer is coming from here - initially I mean, before the breakup.


It is actually just the opposite.  You could toss a lit road flare in a full tank and nothing would happen.  The fuel/air mixture would be well above the upper explosive limit.  A nearly empty tank, on the other hand, is a bomb waiting to happen.
 
Displayed 205 of 205 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report