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 42
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-19 02:04:17 AM
7 votes:
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 03:26:04 AM
3 votes:
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 02:18:58 AM
3 votes:

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 12:42:49 AM
3 votes:
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 07:57:54 AM
2 votes:
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 06:58:27 AM
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-06-19 05:23:40 AM
2 votes:

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 03:16:10 AM
2 votes:

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 02:16:37 AM
2 votes:

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 02:09:50 AM
2 votes:
On a side note...the term "whistleblower" has ceased to have any meaning whatsoever.
2013-06-19 01:32:12 AM
2 votes:
I know why the plane crashed

gravity. it's a biatch
2013-06-18 09:00:40 PM
2 votes:

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 08:28:04 PM
2 votes:
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.
2013-06-20 09:22:43 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-19 10:49:55 AM
1 votes:

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 10:42:41 AM
1 votes:

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 10:07:07 AM
1 votes:

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 09:51:15 AM
1 votes:

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 09:37:51 AM
1 votes:

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 08:34:34 AM
1 votes:
Tards gonna tard.
2013-06-19 07:46:35 AM
1 votes:

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 07:14:35 AM
1 votes:
The official explanation for the crash of TWA flight 800 is that the witnesses who were there are all idiots.
2013-06-19 05:15:39 AM
1 votes:
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 03:57:47 AM
1 votes:

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 03:31:52 AM
1 votes:

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 02:55:01 AM
1 votes:

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 02:36:20 AM
1 votes:

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 02:33:54 AM
1 votes:
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 02:33:49 AM
1 votes:

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 02:27:39 AM
1 votes:

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 02:22:11 AM
1 votes:

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 02:19:19 AM
1 votes:

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 02:16:33 AM
1 votes:
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 02:13:32 AM
1 votes:

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 02:07:13 AM
1 votes:
What's Alex Jones's take on this?
2013-06-19 01:57:43 AM
1 votes:
Director should look up the difference between ordinance and ordnance.
2013-06-19 01:54:48 AM
1 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com
2013-06-19 01:49:18 AM
1 votes:
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 01:47:00 AM
1 votes:

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 01:41:23 AM
1 votes:

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 12:38:24 AM
1 votes:
I heard it was the same Israeli crew that sank the Liberty.
2013-06-18 09:34:51 PM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report