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 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?
 
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