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.

(NYPost)   Where the heck is that missing jet, anyway? Anybody asked Al Qaeda? Hey, let's ask Al Qaeda   (nypost.com) divider line 135
    More: Scary, flight MH370, british press  
•       •       •

17738 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 May 2014 at 1:36 AM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-03 11:40:17 PM
Time to invade.....*spins the big wheel* .... Iran!
 
2014-05-03 11:52:29 PM
Aren't they usually pretty quick to claim responsibility for things like this?
 
2014-05-03 11:53:40 PM
Redlight daily fail bullshiat speculation. Green light ny post that cites daily fail

Great jerb
 
2014-05-04 12:15:55 AM
At this point, what difference does it make?!
 
2014-05-04 12:45:37 AM

fusillade762: Aren't they usually pretty quick to claim responsibility for things like this?


Well, you know, people on fark were saying it couldn't possibly be terrorism because a plane just disappearing isn't terrifying enough...as though every terrorist operation goes exactly like the terrorists' plan.

Isn't the obvious scenario something like United Airlines Flight 93? Why would anybody claim responsibility for a screw-up?
 
2014-05-04 12:57:12 AM

itcamefromschenectady: Well, you know, people on fark were saying it couldn't possibly be terrorism because a plane just disappearing isn't terrifying enough...as though every terrorist operation goes exactly like the terrorists' plan.


There's not a lot of bigass buildings to crash into out in the ocean. Maybe they ran out of fuel looking for one.

Cunning plans, and such.
 
2014-05-04 12:59:14 AM
And they are still playing from the CIA play book circa 1979... "Always blame the highest ranking person who is believable"
 
2014-05-04 01:05:09 AM
I think it's safe to say the plane landed at Spongebob International Airport. *


*/sandbar67
//wish I could take credit for that line
 
2014-05-04 01:07:24 AM

fusillade762: Aren't they usually pretty quick to claim responsibility for things like this?


NOT if you have the plane on the ground right now and are planning on using it to crash into the WTC once people stop looking for it

Seriously, the next time that we see it will be either at the bottom of the ocean or crashing into the WTC.
 
2014-05-04 01:15:35 AM

namatad: fusillade762: Aren't they usually pretty quick to claim responsibility for things like this?

NOT if you have the plane on the ground right now and are planning on using it to crash into the WTC once people stop looking for it

Seriously, the next time that we see it will be either at the bottom of the ocean or crashing into the WTC.


One of my initial thoughts, but where did it land? We're not talking about a Cessna here. This is a 777...needs a runway to handle that landing, and obviously, one to take off....It's very unlikely, but I'm not an aviation expert at all, so maybe a pilot could enlighten us on the possibility of this?
 
2014-05-04 01:38:42 AM
"Bikini Bottom" Bob?
 
2014-05-04 01:41:46 AM
What does 'Al Qaeda linked' mean these days?
 
2014-05-04 01:42:04 AM
Sorry, but it's gonna take more than a NY Post article based on a Daily Fail article based on Malaysian sources is gonna take more than this to convince me.

From reading the Fail article, it sounds like people are going "OK, fark it, we have no other ideas, bring in the usual suspects."
 
2014-05-04 01:42:50 AM

grumpfuff: Sorry, but it's gonna take more than a NY Post article based on a Daily Fail article based on Malaysian sources is gonna take more than this to convince me.

From reading the Fail article, it sounds like people are going "OK, fark it, we have no other ideas, bring in the usual suspects."


FTFM

/should sleep
 
2014-05-04 01:45:27 AM

itcamefromschenectady: fusillade762: Aren't they usually pretty quick to claim responsibility for things like this?

Well, you know, people on fark were saying it couldn't possibly be terrorism because a plane just disappearing isn't terrifying enough...as though every terrorist operation goes exactly like the terrorists' plan.

Isn't the obvious scenario something like United Airlines Flight 93? Why would anybody claim responsibility for a screw-up?


Doesn't the mystery aspect make it more terrifying, not less?

If they did it, they made an entire plane carrying hundreds of people disappear so completely that the law enforcement agencies of pretty much the entire world can't find a trace of it.  No evidence of how they did it.  No trail.  No warning signs even in hindsight.

That would scare ME.
 
2014-05-04 01:46:02 AM

UsikFark: What does 'Al Qaeda linked' mean these days?


assorted brown people who speak something we can't understand.
 
2014-05-04 01:46:19 AM
It's amazing how soon people forget that the general area of the blackboxes was located via their pings.

The plane's at the bottom of the ocean. It's still a tiny needle in a huge haystack though.


Oh wait... we're going conspiracy here... hmm.

It was an Iranian sub that emitted the pings!
 
2014-05-04 01:46:53 AM

UsikFark: What does 'Al Qaeda linked' mean these days?


It means military contractors are leaning on their Senators for more money.
 
2014-05-04 01:47:53 AM
(cat reads TFA)

what a complete pile of stupid, durr, and f**k.

*makes loud scary fart noises while flying around the room*
 
2014-05-04 01:51:25 AM

grumpfuff: gonna take more than this to convince me


If that plane showed up crashing into a tall building, I still wouldn't believe Al Qaeda pulled it off. I'm tired of being asked to believe that group is operationally brilliant on a scale unseen before in history, but also can't figure out how to ignite their own underwear or shoes.
 
2014-05-04 01:52:48 AM
Fark it. It was HAARP, I tells ya. Made a storm over the plane and mind-controlled the pilots right into water, it did.

/why the hell not?
 
2014-05-04 01:53:26 AM
It's been two months. You'd think something would have washed ashore somewhere by now. Seat cushions, luggage, bodies; you know, things that float.
 
2014-05-04 02:02:11 AM

Whatthefark: It's been two months. You'd think something would have washed ashore somewhere by now. Seat cushions, luggage, bodies; you know, things that float.


Only if it crashed.  What if it was actually landed on a remote island and is currently sitting in a secret cave while the passengers are being turned into an evil army by a rogue operational group within the CIA using a half human, half ape-lizard super soldier serum?

Scoff now, but if horrible direct-to-tv movies by SciFi have taught me anything, it's that when the truth finally becomes clear, it will already be too late.
 
2014-05-04 02:02:34 AM

Emposter: UsikFark: What does 'Al Qaeda linked' mean these days?

It means military contractors are leaning on their Senators for more money.


That's what it meant on September 12, 2001.
 
2014-05-04 02:03:37 AM
She's deep under the water. She's gone and there's no conspiracy about it.

Only human garbage seriously believes any conspiracy theory concerning this situation.
 
2014-05-04 02:05:55 AM

Kittypie070: (cat reads TFA)

what a complete pile of stupid, durr, and f**k.

*makes loud scary fart noises while flying around the room*


I always suspect meow qaeda
 
2014-05-04 02:05:55 AM

Kittypie070: She's deep under the water. She's gone and there's no conspiracy about it.

Only human garbage seriously believes any conspiracy theory concerning this situation.


That's hurtful.  I was very proud of my ape-lizard serum theory.

:(
 
2014-05-04 02:08:44 AM

Mark Ratner: namatad: fusillade762: Aren't they usually pretty quick to claim responsibility for things like this?

NOT if you have the plane on the ground right now and are planning on using it to crash into the WTC once people stop looking for it

Seriously, the next time that we see it will be either at the bottom of the ocean or crashing into the WTC.

One of my initial thoughts, but where did it land? We're not talking about a Cessna here. This is a 777...needs a runway to handle that landing, and obviously, one to take off....It's very unlikely, but I'm not an aviation expert at all, so maybe a pilot could enlighten us on the possibility of this?


We went over this in the initial couple of days. 6,000 feet of packed dirt is the most you'd need (heavy load, slick runway) to land if you don't care about safety factors- and you can carve that out of a jungle (hell, they could just use one of our old ones in Vietnam) without too much trouble if you're a well funded operation. The Navy built larger stuff in a week or two during WWII. Runways are normally so big because they're designed so a plane can abort a takeoff or landing at full speed if need be, but if you're only landing or taking off once, you might not worry too much about such things.
 
2014-05-04 02:09:26 AM
It's at the bottom of the ocean. We may find it someday, but odds aren't good, and it's almost certainly gonna be a few years, at least.
 
2014-05-04 02:13:25 AM

Wake Up Sheeple: It's amazing how soon people forget that the general area of the blackboxes was located via their pings.


They're still not sure that that's what the signals they're getting are, even though it's the most likely explanation. Even so, that doesn't preclude the possibility that terrorists were involved and that it went wrong, or that simply crashing the plane into the sea wasn't their plan all along.
 
2014-05-04 02:14:29 AM

Kittypie070: She's deep under the water. She's gone and there's no conspiracy about it.

Only human garbage seriously believes any conspiracy theory concerning this situation.


Careful who you call "human garbage" Kittiepie.
 
2014-05-04 02:17:22 AM

cptjeff: Mark Ratner: namatad: fusillade762: Aren't they usually pretty quick to claim responsibility for things like this?

NOT if you have the plane on the ground right now and are planning on using it to crash into the WTC once people stop looking for it

Seriously, the next time that we see it will be either at the bottom of the ocean or crashing into the WTC.

One of my initial thoughts, but where did it land? We're not talking about a Cessna here. This is a 777...needs a runway to handle that landing, and obviously, one to take off....It's very unlikely, but I'm not an aviation expert at all, so maybe a pilot could enlighten us on the possibility of this?


We went over this in the initial couple of days. 6,000 feet of packed dirt is the most you'd need (heavy load, slick runway) to land if you don't care about safety factors- and you can carve that out of a jungle (hell, they could just use one of our old ones in Vietnam) without too much trouble if you're a well funded operation. The Navy built larger stuff in a week or two during WWII. Runways are normally so big because they're designed so a plane can abort a takeoff or landing at full speed if need be, but if you're only landing or taking off once, you might not worry too much about such things.


Okay, but what about the logistics involved of carving out a runway in a jungle, or using an existing one, without being seen? And getting the fuel for take-off and the supposed terrorist attack? Seems unlikely, but so was 9/11.  I'm sure the CIA is all over it, and there's nothing to worry about.
 
2014-05-04 02:21:32 AM

Triumph: Kittypie070: She's deep under the water. She's gone and there's no conspiracy about it.

Only human garbage seriously believes any conspiracy theory concerning this situation.

Careful who you call "human garbage" Kittiepie.


That's sad.
 
2014-05-04 02:21:48 AM

Whatthefark: It's been two months. You'd think something would have washed ashore somewhere by now. Seat cushions, luggage, bodies; you know, things that float.


That is the thing that gets me. Remember with the Air France flight, even though it took them years to find the plane, they had large piece of wreckage as well as smaller stuff like seat cushions within days. Because when planes break apart, a lot of stuff floats. Now, granted, that was right along the flight path, but we done been combing things pretty good, and the only way they wouldn't have any wreckage floating is if it didn't break up when hitting the water- and that's a zillion to one shot, unless the pilot was able to deliberately go for a water landing, after which the plane sunk- think Hudson River. Trouble with that is that it leaves time for escape, and triggering of all sorts of beacons- and I presume planes have the same sort of water activated emergency beacons ships have. Touch water and they scream- I may be wrong on that.

Add in the fact that it disappeared at exactly the right time- a 20 minute window that's one of the very few in the world where you're entirely invisible to radar. Yes, it could be a coincidence, but that's astonishingly fishy.
 
2014-05-04 02:23:11 AM

Emposter: Kittypie070: She's deep under the water. She's gone and there's no conspiracy about it.

Only human garbage seriously believes any conspiracy theory concerning this situation.


That's hurtful.  I was very proud of my ape-lizard serum theory.

:(


Dude, I didn't include y'all in there. Please examine the underlined word.

*wub, soothing purr*
 
2014-05-04 02:26:35 AM

Kittypie070: (cat reads TFA)

what a complete pile of stupid, durr, and f**k.

*makes loud scary fart noises while flying around the room*


I do not want to be around when you get ahold of Sriracha.
 
2014-05-04 02:26:49 AM
Explosive decompression?

www.wearysloth.com
 
2014-05-04 02:27:12 AM
I just don't like conspiracy theories being taken seriously cuz 99.999999999999999999% of them suck.

Conjuring them for laughs is a different matter.
 
2014-05-04 02:28:26 AM
FTFA Members of a violent cell of al Qaeda-linked terrorists

As opposed to the peace loving terrorists?
 
2014-05-04 02:29:13 AM
this is THE BEST anti-bengahzi stunt of all time.
 
2014-05-04 02:31:01 AM

Kittypie070: Emposter: Kittypie070: She's deep under the water. She's gone and there's no conspiracy about it.

Only human garbage seriously believes any conspiracy theory concerning this situation.

That's hurtful.  I was very proud of my ape-lizard serum theory.

:(

Dude, I didn't include y'all in there. Please examine the underlined word.

*wub, soothing purr*


People who don't take escaped ape-lizard super soldiers seriously are usually the first main characters to die, right after the family of extremely generic upper class white people on vacation with their two children.
 
2014-05-04 02:32:42 AM

Mark Ratner: cptjeff: Mark Ratner: namatad: fusillade762: Aren't they usually pretty quick to claim responsibility for things like this?

NOT if you have the plane on the ground right now and are planning on using it to crash into the WTC once people stop looking for it

Seriously, the next time that we see it will be either at the bottom of the ocean or crashing into the WTC.

One of my initial thoughts, but where did it land? We're not talking about a Cessna here. This is a 777...needs a runway to handle that landing, and obviously, one to take off....It's very unlikely, but I'm not an aviation expert at all, so maybe a pilot could enlighten us on the possibility of this?


We went over this in the initial couple of days. 6,000 feet of packed dirt is the most you'd need (heavy load, slick runway) to land if you don't care about safety factors- and you can carve that out of a jungle (hell, they could just use one of our old ones in Vietnam) without too much trouble if you're a well funded operation. The Navy built larger stuff in a week or two during WWII. Runways are normally so big because they're designed so a plane can abort a takeoff or landing at full speed if need be, but if you're only landing or taking off once, you might not worry too much about such things.

Okay, but what about the logistics involved of carving out a runway in a jungle, or using an existing one, without being seen? And getting the fuel for take-off and the supposed terrorist attack? Seems unlikely, but so was 9/11.  I'm sure the CIA is all over it, and there's nothing to worry about.


Doesn't take a lot of equipment if you have time, and a random bulldozer or fuel truck here or there isn't going to attract much attention anywhere in the world. You could just re purpose farm equipment- would you blink twice if you saw random guys driving farm equipment in a rural area? You wouldn't assume they were clearing a runway, you'd assume they were clearing farmland. You don't have to be perfectly invisible if you can make your activity look normal. There are a whole lot of places where you'd never be noticed- a big forest, a big desert- there are a lot of those places out there. The world is really, really big. If you're using an old Vietnam era something, you may even have pavement still in place. Just gotta kill the weeds and clear the thing off, really. And it's even easier when you have the complicity of a friendly government- Pakistan, for example. It's becoming increasingly clear that the ISI sheltered Bin Laden. For the right price, any small amount of scrutiny they might be exposed to could probably be taken care of.
 
2014-05-04 02:33:44 AM

jaybeezey: FTFA Members of a violent cell of al Qaeda-linked terrorists

As opposed to the peace loving terrorists?


Probably as opposed to ones running camps, logistics, or other support activities.

But yeah, a tad redundant.
 
2014-05-04 02:33:48 AM
I eat ape-lizard super soldiers for breakfast :)

The obnoxiously yuppie family is for midnight snacks.
 
2014-05-04 02:39:26 AM

namatad: NOT if you have the plane on the ground right now and are planning on using it to crash into the WTC once people stop looking for it


Contrary to what 9/11 led people to believe, it's impossible for a rogue passenger jet to get very far without insiders telling NORAD and everyone else to stand down and ignore them.
 
2014-05-04 02:40:07 AM

Mark Ratner: cptjeff: Mark Ratner: namatad: fusillade762: Aren't they usually pretty quick to claim responsibility for things like this?

NOT if you have the plane on the ground right now and are planning on using it to crash into the WTC once people stop looking for it

Seriously, the next time that we see it will be either at the bottom of the ocean or crashing into the WTC.

One of my initial thoughts, but where did it land? We're not talking about a Cessna here. This is a 777...needs a runway to handle that landing, and obviously, one to take off....It's very unlikely, but I'm not an aviation expert at all, so maybe a pilot could enlighten us on the possibility of this?


We went over this in the initial couple of days. 6,000 feet of packed dirt is the most you'd need (heavy load, slick runway) to land if you don't care about safety factors- and you can carve that out of a jungle (hell, they could just use one of our old ones in Vietnam) without too much trouble if you're a well funded operation. The Navy built larger stuff in a week or two during WWII. Runways are normally so big because they're designed so a plane can abort a takeoff or landing at full speed if need be, but if you're only landing or taking off once, you might not worry too much about such things.

Okay, but what about the logistics involved of carving out a runway in a jungle, or using an existing one, without being seen? And getting the fuel for take-off and the supposed terrorist attack? Seems unlikely, but so was 9/11.  I'm sure the CIA is all over it, and there's nothing to worry about.



If it isn't on the bottom of the Indian Ocean, it's in Xinjiang (or a valley nearby). Plenty of emptiness there.
 
2014-05-04 02:47:12 AM

cptjeff: Wake Up Sheeple: It's amazing how soon people forget that the general area of the blackboxes was located via their pings.

They're still not sure that that's what the signals they're getting are, even though it's the most likely explanation. Even so, that doesn't preclude the possibility that terrorists were involved and that it went wrong, or that simply crashing the plane into the sea wasn't their plan all along.


I was mostly responding to the crackpots in the article who think the plane was somewhere else. There's no question those are pings from blackboxes, which is why the Bay of Bengal story was immediately shot down as a hoax.

If we're going to go down the road of conspiracy, then there's a really small remote outside chance those pings were detected from some other flight that crashed that had gone unreported within the same 30 days. However, I'm not saying you were suggesting this.

And we can go all out and say the Chinese are involved, since it was only the Malaysian families that did the complaining. And that would make sense since the Vietnamese claimed to have seen nothing on their radars. You could also involve the Asian drug syndicates and say they hijacked the plane to smuggle sweet North Korean ice, but got shot down by the CIA when they attempted to land at nearby Perth, Australia. Game, set, and checkmate libulardos.
 
2014-05-04 02:47:34 AM
strategy.consiliumglobalbusinessadvisors.com
 
2014-05-04 02:54:18 AM

J. Frank Parnell: namatad: NOT if you have the plane on the ground right now and are planning on using it to crash into the WTC once people stop looking for it

Contrary to what 9/11 led people to believe, it's impossible for a rogue passenger jet to get very far without insiders telling NORAD and everyone else to stand down and ignore them.


They have standing orders to shoot down rouge planes? SWEET
 
2014-05-04 02:55:17 AM
Xinjiang

Someone with detectors would have picked up ongoing signals at least from the engines, maybe continuing to Xinjiang area.

The engine telemetry stopped being picked up after timepoint/location "somewhere over water".

Nothing has been found in the Satellite North Arc.

Someone with military radars if nothing else might have picked up returns from a target in that same Northern Arc.

There were no returns that could be traced as far as I know from a wayward airliner with its transponders turned off.

Secondarily, if Xinjiang, then where did the blatantly undersea pings come from, that were very very definitely specific airliner freq pings?
 
Displayed 50 of 135 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report