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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 205 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report