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  
•       •       •

17756 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 May 2014 at 1:36 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



135 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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?
 
2014-05-04 02:55:45 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: 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.


The trickiest part about the whole scenario is getting past air defenses. China and India haven't exactly been forthcoming about exactly what their coverage is around there, but Al Qaeda doesn't have great relationships with either, and those two countries probably have the best systems in the region, so it'd be a big risk. But if you could get past, there is a shaitload of nothing in Western China and the TinpotDictator-stans, and nobody watches it much. There's no one on the ground, and it's not exactly a hotspot of satellite photography.
 
2014-05-04 03:01:48 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.


Sorry but the passengers are just as gone under the sea as the plane is :(
 
2014-05-04 03:07:20 AM  

Kittypie070:
The engine telemetry stopped being picked up after timepoint/location "somewhere over water".

Nothing has been found in the Satellite North Arc.


The engine telementry did not 'stop being picked up'. It was a single ping, not a continuous stream, and did not signal whether they were over water or not. What it was was a signal of how far the plane could possibly be from the satellite. The plane could have, and probably did, continue flying past the time of that ping. You're not just talking about searching that narrow swatch, you're talking 500 miles to either side of it. I'm not saying you're wrong about the overall picture, but remember, nothing has been found on the satellite south arc, either.

Kittypie070: Someone with military radars if nothing else might have picked up returns from a target in that same Northern Arc.


Might have, could have. Radar coverage, military or not, is far from comprehensive in that region, though it would be a major stumbling block.

Kittypie070: Secondarily, if Xinjiang, then where did the blatantly undersea pings come from, that were very very definitely specific airliner freq pings?


The ones discovered more than a month after the disappearance after the world knew exactly where everyone was searching and expected the plane to be? They'd be incredibly easy to fake if you had cause to, just dump an intimation near the search sent to trigger on those frequencies. You could even do it from one of the actual boats involved in the search. Hell, if a terrorist organization did have the plane, they could even dump the real black boxes into some random spot into the ocean after the fact.
 
2014-05-04 03:10:31 AM  
My money's on THRUSH as the culprits but it could have been KAOS.
 
2014-05-04 03:11:19 AM  
Oh come on, if I accidentally blow up my grill in my backyard and someone were to ask al Qaeda if they did it you know that the answer would be, "Yes.  We blew up that grill in the name of allah."
 
2014-05-04 03:14:59 AM  
I know what destroyed the plane:

Impact with the ocean.
 
2014-05-04 03:15:53 AM  

DrBenway: My money's on THRUSH as the culprits but it could have been KAOS.


Meh. More like SMERSH or SPECTRE
 
2014-05-04 03:21:18 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?


I cannot claim to speak for random folks on fark, but the effort to terror ratio of the rare hijacking is pretty shiatty.

You get far more done with a bomb in a crowd or a chemical train.

9-11 was a one-time move. If they get pilots in position and another building they could do it again, but they seem to lack the will to even go for that. Suicidal terrorism is just not that popular. Terrorists in the west are a rarity.
 
2014-05-04 03:23:24 AM  

zerkalo: DrBenway: My money's on THRUSH as the culprits but it could have been KAOS.

Meh. More like SMERSH or SPECTRE


HAIL HYDRA!
 
2014-05-04 03:26:39 AM  
cptjeff 2014-05-04 03:07:20 AM

They'd be incredibly easy to fake if you had cause to

Name a reason that makes any tactical sense at all, assuming you are now placing yourself in a terrorist's shoes.
 
2014-05-04 03:34:41 AM  
 
2014-05-04 03:36:06 AM  

Kittypie070: 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?


It is pretty obvious. The co-pilot was turned into an alqueda operative, and took control of the flight. He flew to the middle of the ocean, tore out the black box, and dropped so that everyone would think the plane fell into the ocean, He then turned around and flew to the Maldives, There he delivered his prize capture to the quedas, the passengers turned to forced labor to refit the plane's chemtrail sprayers with Muslimgas, and huge loudpeakers to play the adhan. Any women on board were obviously killed because they were captured by a man that wasnt their husband. The men will be turned into "processed meat" that will be sold to unsuspecting Christmas Islanders, their biggest crime is not living on Mohammedmas island.
It seems like I am the only one capable of connecting these dots, and I get tired of being shooed off the bench at the bus stop when I start explaining to everyone why they should listen to me.
 
2014-05-04 03:48:19 AM  
*whips out the anti-HURR flamethrower*
 
2014-05-04 04:09:15 AM  

Mock26: Oh come on, if I accidentally blow up my grill in my backyard and someone were to ask al Qaeda if they did it you know that the answer would be, "Yes.  We blew up that grill in the name of allah."


Or Allah did it to punish you for grilling pork chops
 
2014-05-04 04:12:53 AM  

Kittypie070: Sorry but the passengers are just as gone under the sea as the plane is :(


Proof?

I'm not a tin-foil hat person, but do you have proof? Is it likely it's at the bottom of the ocean? Yes. If a small scrap of wreckage shows up, it was likely pilot suicide. The other option is hijacking (with detailed knowledge on how to disappear).

The copilot was not a perfect specimen, but did he do it? No notes, no insurance polices (so far as CNN knows).

Either way, this will become one of the most fascinating Mayday episodes of all time.
 
2014-05-04 04:14:37 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: 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.


Glad to hear that I am not the only to think that. Uighur separatists.
 
2014-05-04 04:14:59 AM  

Great clown Pagliacci's pick-me-up: It seems like I am the only one capable of connecting these dots, and I get tired of being shooed off the bench at the bus stop when I start explaining to everyone why they should listen to me.


Your theory may very well be correct, but you and I both know that you were shooed off the bench at the bus stop because you were masturbating furiously over the body of a dead pigeon. The police made this very clear in their report about the incident.

I appreciate that you may have a valid point, but may I suggest that there may be a more appropriate way to deliver it than by screaming it in halting Esperanto while violating yourself with a corn dog in front of a bus load of terrified disabled schoolchildren? Just sayin'.
 
2014-05-04 04:28:47 AM  
lol every1 here is so randum.
 
2014-05-04 04:32:05 AM  
Ask Al Qaeda

i.imgur.com

Dear Alqaedette,

My arranged husband-to-be said he was flying out of the country on business, but he hasn't even pinged me for two months. Has he been seduced by an infidel sharmuta? Or martyred in jihad?

Sleepless in Sapang



SIS, يا مآمن للرجال يا مآمن الميّة في الغربال. [trusting men is like trusting water in a sieve]. I'm sure he's been hittin' in on the down-low all along. He's like keys in molten lava. But don't worry, you'll find another  رجل وسيم . There's always more planes in the sea. And if the next one is unfaithful, you just make him a martyr, girl.


www.washingtonpost.com
 
2014-05-04 04:33:09 AM  

Trapper439: Great clown Pagliacci's pick-me-up: It seems like I am the only one capable of connecting these dots, and I get tired of being shooed off the bench at the bus stop when I start explaining to everyone why they should listen to me.

Your theory may very well be correct, but you and I both know that you were shooed off the bench at the bus stop because you were masturbating furiously over the body of a dead pigeon. The police made this very clear in their report about the incident.

I appreciate that you may have a valid point, but may I suggest that there may be a more appropriate way to deliver it than by screaming it in halting Esperanto while violating yourself with a corn dog in front of a bus load of terrified disabled schoolchildren? Just sayin'.


In my defense, that pigeon was alive when I started.
 
2014-05-04 04:34:39 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*


Oh how cute. Her name is kitties too. Too cutesy. Let's clamor and fawn over hee cuz she's our lil Internet buddy so she got street cred and all dat.
 
2014-05-04 04:47:40 AM  

Friction8r: 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*

Oh how cute. Her name is kitties too. Too cutesy. Let's clamor and fawn over hee cuz she's our lil Internet buddy so she got street cred and all dat.


Yeah, people here actually like her.
Just think - you'll never know how that feels.
 
2014-05-04 04:55:37 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.


So go find it then. If you seriously believe that whoever took this plane and deliberately flew it so as to avoid radar detection, only to crash it in the middle of nowhere, then you are the fool. This plane is not on the bottom of the ocean.
 
2014-05-04 05:28:02 AM  

cptjeff: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: 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.

The trickiest part about the whole scenario is getting past air defenses. China and India haven't exactly been forthcoming about exactly what their coverage is around there, but Al Qaeda doesn't have great relationships with either, and those two countries probably hav ...


True, but if this whole episode has taught us anything it is that governments pay a lot less attention (and react less quickly) to what's flying in and near their airspace than one might have thought. Also...

qualtrough: Glad to hear that I am not the only to think that. Uighur separatists.


Yep. And in this situation the PRC is one of the few countries that I could imagine being able and willing to keep a lid on whatever they might know, to the extent it might embarrass them.

/I mean, if I had to bet, I'd say the bottom of the Indian Ocean, but if someone gave me good enough odds...
 
2014-05-04 05:35:13 AM  
Oh, good. This will give CNN another month's worth of material to prattle on about.
 
2014-05-04 05:43:59 AM  
That plane was offed by the Malaysian government...

They already had the pilots family member in jail as a de facto political prisoner....Malaysian Govt withheld plane info for some time...most of the passengers were non-Muslim Chinese (Chinese not popular in many Asian countries)....only a government can obfuscate so much.

Malaysian Govt offed MH370
 
2014-05-04 06:06:34 AM  
I already said it before.  The Tea Party stole the plane and are busy converting it into a gun ship to use at the Clinton inauguration.
 
2014-05-04 06:09:09 AM  
I love Fark this time of night. All the real, honest-to-God tinfoil hat droolers come crawling out of the woodwork like roaches.
 
2014-05-04 06:12:03 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 you have no real concept of just how big the ocean is, how far from land the plane went down, and how hard water can be, if you hit it with enough velocity. Depending on how the plane impacted, it could have been practically vaporized.
 
2014-05-04 06:12:34 AM  
Who benefits from this disappeared plane? That's the question you ask, and the answer only goes one way -- Ted Turner.

No, not for his CNN connection, the plane is actually going to be used to revive WCW by delivering the Shockmaster to the Georgia Dome for Starrcade '14.
 
2014-05-04 06:19:42 AM  

Emposter: 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?


It doesn't actually work as terrorism, unless you make people know who they should be terrified of, and why.
 
2014-05-04 06:48:54 AM  

Dansker: Emposter: 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?

It doesn't actually work as terrorism, unless you make people know who they should be terrified of, and why.


The strange thing to me is that no group of terrorist lunatics tried to take credit just for the hell of it. "Oh, yeah, we...uh...totally crashed that thing in the ocean. So...fear us and stuff. And hey, we'll do that again if, uh...if our mujahibros in Remotistan aren't freed immediately."

Or maybe someone did but it wasn't credible enough to make the news. (LOL. Like the media would give a fark about credibility.)
 
2014-05-04 07:03:36 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Dansker: Emposter: 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?

It doesn't actually work as terrorism, unless you make people know who they should be terrified of, and why.

The strange thing to me is that no group of terrorist lunatics tried to take credit just for the hell of it. "Oh, yeah, we...uh...totally crashed that thing in the ocean. So...fear us and stuff. And hey, we'll do that again if, uh...if our mujahibros in Remotistan aren't freed immediately."

Or maybe someone did but it wasn't credible enough to make the news. (LOL. Like the media would give a fark about credibility.)


If I recall correctly, al Qaeda straight out said: "Look, guys, it's not like we don't wish we had the skills and resources to pull off something like that without a trace, but as much as we'd like to, we honestly can't take credit for this."
 
2014-05-04 07:14:05 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Dansker: Emposter: 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?

It doesn't actually work as terrorism, unless you make people know who they should be terrified of, and why.

The strange thing to me is that no group of terrorist lunatics tried to take credit just for the hell of it. "Oh, yeah, we...uh...totally crashed that thing in the ocean. So...fear us and stuff. And hey, we'll do that again if, uh...if our mujahibros in Remotistan aren't freed immediately."

Or maybe someone did but it wasn't credible enough to make the news. (LOL. Like the media would give a fark about credibility.)


Well, such a story would not be credible without details - and that would be risky, since the plane could still be found, and the story exposed as a lie. Anyone falsely claiming credit for this at this point risks losing all credibility.
 
2014-05-04 07:26:14 AM  

Dansker: If I recall correctly, al Qaeda straight out said: "Look, guys, it's not like we don't wish we had the skills and resources to pull off something like that without a trace, but as much as we'd like to, we honestly can't take credit for this."


Why would anyone thing al Qaeda would "take credit" for stealing a plane they planned to use later? They'd deny knowing anything about it!

I'm amazed people think they'd admit it, if it was true.
 
2014-05-04 07:39:05 AM  

Confabulat: Dansker: If I recall correctly, al Qaeda straight out said: "Look, guys, it's not like we don't wish we had the skills and resources to pull off something like that without a trace, but as much as we'd like to, we honestly can't take credit for this."

Why would anyone thing al Qaeda would "take credit" for stealing a plane they planned to use later? They'd deny knowing anything about it!

I'm amazed people think they'd admit it, if it was true.


I'm amazed that anyone thinks the "steal huge plane, hide it somewhere, and use it later for terrorism"-plan would make any sense.

Why would they steal a plane in a hugely spectacular manner, that makes the entire planet wonder where it is, then try to keep it hidden for months and months, increasing the risk of discovery and failure of the entire operation with every passing day?
If they wanted to use the plane as a weapon, in spite of everyone knowing that 9/11 is the kind of thing, you can only pull off once, why didn't they do so immediately?
If they're only going to use it later, why not wait, and steal it when they need it?
 
2014-05-04 07:47:29 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

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


They're going to be very disappointed if they try that.  The new WTC was super over-engineered due to the obvious risks/threats.  While the original structures were mostly just steel (which softened/melted), the new ones are mostly bunker grade concrete all the way up, with blast/bullet proof windows, advanced fire suppression systems, etc etc.

They used 3x the amount of material in One World Trade that you would use to build a normal structure of that size.  They tried very hard to make it bomb/bullet/plane proof.
 
2014-05-04 07:50:04 AM  
Mostly, I'm just disappointed with the lack of creativity on behalf of the tinfoil-hatters.
If I were to invent a conspiracy, instead of all the usual suspects, I'd focus on the Savama, the Iranian clericy's ruthless secret police, heirs to the CIA trained SAVAK, known for mercilessly persuing Iranian system critics, regardsless of where in the world they are.
According to confidential sources I can't further describe, they crashed the plane to prevent two Iranian defectors from making it to asylum in Denmark and Germany. The only real question is: What did those two brave Christians know, that justified the cold blooded murder of 237 innocent people?
 
2014-05-04 07:52:08 AM  
I don't have any "theories," but it could have been intentional. Or something, or some group of things, just went wrong.

As a reconstruction of [ValuJet 592] suggests, in complex systems some accidents may be "normal"-and trying to prevent them all could even make operations more dangerous

Consider, for simplicity, that there are three kinds of airplane accidents. The most common ones might be called "procedural." They are those old-fashioned accidents that result from single obvious mistakes, that can immediately be understood in simple terms, and that have simple resolutions...

The second kind of accident could be called "engineered." It consists of those surprising materials failures that should have been predicted by designers or discovered by test pilots but were not. Such failures at first defy understanding, but ultimately they yield to examination and result in tangible solutions...

The ValuJet accident is different. I would argue that it represents the third and most elusive kind of disaster, a "system accident," which may lie beyond the reach of conventional solution, and which a small group of thinkers, inspired by the Yale sociologist Charles Perrow, has been exploring elsewhere-for example, in power generation, chemical manufacturing, nuclear-weapons control, and space flight. Perrow has coined the more loaded term "normal accident" for such disasters, because he believes that they are normal for our time...
 
2014-05-04 07:59:27 AM  

Alonjar: 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

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

They're going to be very disappointed if they try that.  The new WTC was super over-engineered due to the obvious risks/threats.  While the original structures were mostly just steel (which softened/melted), the new ones are mostly bunker grade concrete all the way up, with blast/bullet proof windows, advanced fire suppression systems, etc etc.

They used 3x the amount of material in One World Trade that you would use to build a normal structure of that size.  They tried very hard to make it bomb/bullet/plane proof.


Wifi and cellphone coverage must suck.
 
2014-05-04 08:00:38 AM  

namatad: They have standing orders to shoot down rouge planes? SWEET


Yup.

And jets are scrambled a lot more often than people think each year. Most turn out to be malfunctions so no one gets shot down, but if enough time goes by without any response they are shot out of the sky. Some people think that's actually what happened to flight 93, and why wtc7 had to be demolished without a plane hitting it.

/in before screaming insults
 
2014-05-04 08:10:52 AM  
It's Aliens.
img.fark.net
See, the Aliens guy said so.
 
2014-05-04 08:11:18 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: namatad: They have standing orders to shoot down rouge planes? SWEET

Yup.

And jets are scrambled a lot more often than people think each year. Most turn out to be malfunctions so no one gets shot down, but if enough time goes by without any response they are shot out of the sky. Some people think that's actually what happened to flight 93, and why wtc7 had to be demolished without a plane hitting it.

/in before screaming insults


/facepalm.gif
 
2014-05-04 08:25:55 AM  

Confabulat: Dansker: If I recall correctly, al Qaeda straight out said: "Look, guys, it's not like we don't wish we had the skills and resources to pull off something like that without a trace, but as much as we'd like to, we honestly can't take credit for this."

Why would anyone thing al Qaeda would "take credit" for stealing a plane they planned to use later? They'd deny knowing anything about it!

I'm amazed people think they'd admit it, if it was true.


To me it doesn't fit their MO. The Al-Qaeda franchises are busy killing their own countrymen where they operate. If they wanted to kill 50 people, they could plant a cheap car bomb in a crowded market tomorrow. Why would they execute a James Bond style hijacking?
 
2014-05-04 08:38:01 AM  

Gijick: Why would they execute a James Bond style hijacking?


What do you call 9/11? Those people trained for months and months.
 
2014-05-04 09:08:18 AM  

Confabulat: Gijick: Why would they execute a James Bond style hijacking?

What do you call 9/11? Those people trained for months and months.


True. Still, you are wearing tinfoil right now.
 
2014-05-04 09:09:24 AM  

cptjeff: 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.


Here's the part of the conspiracy theory that loses it for me.  To have been really effective, terrorists would have used the plane as a weapon within minutes or hours of the takeoff.  This would have been opportune since the it's the time of the highest amount of confusion.  Assuming that the plane was hijacked and is sitting somewhere waiting for orders, every government in the world is now looking for this plane.  The minute it takes off, it will get noticed.  And the minute it is noticed, there will be absolutely ZERO hesitation to shoot it down since the only explanation for it being in the air is a terrorist attack.

Some kind of catastrophic failure, mistakes by the flight crew, crash in the ocean.  That is the most likely explanation.
 
2014-05-04 09:13:39 AM  

Confabulat: Gijick: Why would they execute a James Bond style hijacking?

What do you call 9/11? Those people trained for months and months.


And despite all that planning, we now know that the plot could have easily been uncovered at many points along the way.  Intelligence agencies missed signs and didn't follow up leads that would have unraveled it.  And that was back in the days of less sophisticated counter-ops and less surveillance.  9-11 for all it's effectiveness, wasn't exactly a plot on the level of James Bond.
 
2014-05-04 09:16:12 AM  
I like the idea that you can just ask al Qaeda questions, like they have a 1-800 number or something. Or have a PR Twitter account where they just talk about what they do. And maybe give out steam codes or something.
 
2014-05-04 09:17:56 AM  

Close2TheEdge: cptjeff: 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.

Here's the part of the conspiracy theory that loses it for me.  To have been really effective, terrorists would have used the plane as a weapon within minutes or hours of the takeoff.  This would have been opportune since the it's the time of the highest amount of confusion.  Assuming that the plane was hijacked and is sitting somewhere waiting for orders, every government in the world is now looking for this plane.  The minute it takes off, it will get noticed.  And the minute it is noticed, there will be absolutely ZERO hesitation to shoot it down since the only explanation for it being in the air is a terrorist attack.

Some kind of catastrophic failure, mistakes by the flight crew, crash in the ocean.  That is the most likely explanation.


Exactly. The plane was a good trick. It wasn't one worth the trouble to repeat. Plenty of trains, festivals, and marathons, not to mention other infrastructure left to hit.
 
2014-05-04 10:28:27 AM  
With all the news coverage on this aircraft's satellite comm capabilities, perhaps whoever took it is now aware of all the systems that need to be disabled so as not to notify a world that is watching and is trying to do so while keeping the aircraft operable. That kind of thing takes time without a 777 mechanic or rep from Boeing around.

That or it's at the bottom of the IO.
 
2014-05-04 11:07:14 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.


Well couldn't somebody steal and land the plane, then remove and plant the black box out there where they heard the pings?
 
2014-05-04 11:10:40 AM  
FTFA:

They were all arrested in Malaysia last week.


Ah yes, unless that is an article fail, possible for the multitude of reasons aforementioned, we usually would 'detain' instead of 'arresting' people outright. That's some nice guilty until proven innocent work. But yeah, "brown people" as noted, so...

An officer with the Counter Terrorism Division of Malaysia's Special Branch said the arrests have increased concern that terrorists may have taken control of the plane.

That's akin to saying, "Drew Curtis' arrest (sic; detainment) raises concern that Farker's discussion of elaborate conspiracy theories may be valid".
 
2014-05-04 11:29:39 AM  

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


Hmm yeah.

They probably need some waterboarding to admit it, and admit that it was Iran, or Russia, no, Iran is safer.
 
2014-05-04 11:32:10 AM  

ElLoco: 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.


 If only there were some towers in Malaysia...
 
2014-05-04 12:44:18 PM  

PanicMan: I like the idea that you can just ask al Qaeda questions, like they have a 1-800 number or something. Or have a PR Twitter account where they just talk about what they do. And maybe give out steam codes or something.


No shiat. Half of me believes they are all chum. The the other half knows that Al Queda has learned something from watching their stuff dissected by intelligence agencies and the media.
So they stop doing the things the world knows happens before an attack, mainly chatter. If it IS Al Queda, there is only am elite inner echelon that knows anything about it, and they use only paper, pages and couriers to communicate. This is what happens when we let them know how they are caught. They adapt.
As far as the plane goes, I would guess they weren't ever planning on keeping hostages and tossed them out over the ocean.
Plane lands and is hidden on some island, where it is maintained by a trained mechanic either part of it or held hostage.
They have YEARS to sit on this plane, and can move kerosene in small enough quantities over that time to accumulate enough to fill the plane.
Then, one day, the plane takes off. There is enough fuel to hit the west coast. The plane flies low to the water and has a route planned to avoid radar detection until they are too close to be intercepted. Then twenty minutes later it crashes into the ocean because they had a shiatty mechanic.

So I guess we dint have anything to worry about.
 
2014-05-04 12:51:31 PM  
I doubt Al Qaeda has anything to do with the missing jet, Bush Corp lost most of the best black op pilots on 9/11.
 
2014-05-04 12:57:25 PM  

Close2TheEdge: Here's the part of the conspiracy theory that loses it for me.  To have been really effective, terrorists would have used the plane as a weapon within minutes or hours of the takeoff.  This would have been opportune since the it's the time of the highest amount of confusion.  Assuming that the plane was hijacked and is sitting somewhere waiting for orders, every government in the world is now looking for this plane.  The minute it takes off, it will get noticed.  And the minute it is noticed, there will be absolutely ZERO hesitation to shoot it down since the only explanation for it being in the air is a terrorist attack.

Some kind of catastrophic failure, mistakes by the flight crew, crash in the ocean.  That is the most likely explanation.


Yeah, that's ultimately how I feel.

A guy I work with was arguing with me that it was definitely terrorists.  Terrorists who did not want to identify themselves, what they wanted, or to showcase how capable they are at causing terror.  Which is more or less what terrorism entails.  A terrorist  wants to be known as the boogeyman that's out to get you.  If he can take down  this plane, then he wants you to know that he can for sure take down  yours, too.  Why leave the strong possibility that it could have just been mistakes by the crew, since most people don't buy into conspiracy theories?  Make sure they  know that someone's out to get them.

I'm not going to say that what happened was most definitely not criminal.  For all I know, it could have been.  But to call it terrorism is to completely miss what we define terrorism to be.
 
2014-05-04 01:08:57 PM  
Heck, if I were AQs publicity guy, id claim credit for this whether they had done it or not.
 
2014-05-04 01:33:10 PM  
The plane was hit by the shockwave from a nearby explosion of a small meteorite at such a distance that the plane was blasted free of earth's atmosphere intact. It is either still in a low erratic orbit or it was vaporized on re-entry.
 
2014-05-04 01:33:31 PM  
NY Post?

That's all I needed to see to know the article is full of crap.
 
2014-05-04 01:40:09 PM  

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


Groups did claim responsibility but were dismissed by the US government for various reasons.
 
2014-05-04 01:55:45 PM  

Kurmudgeon: I doubt Al Qaeda has anything to do with the missing jet, Bush Corp lost most of the best black op pilots on 9/11.


The conspiracy theory from day 1 claimed they were either missiles that hit the Pentagon, or drone airplanes that hit the wtc. And the real flights landed at a military base where all the passengers were given new identities. Keep up with your derpy conspiracy theories.
 
2014-05-04 03:22:53 PM  

Friction8r: Oh how cute. Her name is kitties too. Too cutesy. Let's clamor and fawn over hee cuz she's our lil Internet buddy so she got street cred and all dat.


Dayum.

Imma just steal your beers yet again.

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.comwww.letssmiletoday.com
 
2014-05-04 03:42:08 PM  

Alonjar: 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

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

They're going to be very disappointed if they try that.  The new WTC was super over-engineered due to the obvious risks/threats.  While the original structures were mostly just steel (which softened/melted), the new ones are mostly bunker grade concrete all the way up, with blast/bullet proof windows, advanced fire suppression systems, etc etc.

They used 3x the amount of material in One World Trade that you would use to build a normal structure of that size.  They tried very hard to make it bomb/bullet/plane proof.


1) really? super cool
2) SHHHHH now they will just change targets !!
 
2014-05-04 03:50:01 PM  

powhound: Kittypie070: Sorry but the passengers are just as gone under the sea as the plane is :(

Proof?


Well, no one has proof right now, if they're not A) the NTSB B) the Malaysian Government C) whatever other high powered search/recovery agents in place like the Ozzers D) the Bluefin operators and analysts.

All I know is that she's just as gone as gone can be without being literally off planet, therefore the most sensible and logical place to think she is...is at rest somewhere at the bottom of Davy Jones' Locker.

I'm not a tin-foil hat person, but do you have proof? Is it likely it's at the bottom of the ocean? Yes. If a small scrap of wreckage shows up, it was likely pilot suicide. The other option is hijacking (with detailed knowledge on how to disappear).

What I stated is the best I got. I don't work for any governments.

The copilot was not a perfect specimen, but did he do it? No notes, no insurance polices (so far as CNN knows).

CNN knows only what their sources tell them. The quality of sources can vary.

As for the co-pilot...All parties involved, dead or alive are automatically assumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of LAW.

Do not ever, EVER forget that or disregard it.

Either way, this will become one of the most fascinating Mayday episodes of all time.

That's certainly true.
 
2014-05-04 04:05:07 PM  

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


They may be less likely to come out saying "we did it" if the plan is to take the plane they have stashed away, fill it with explosives, and fly it into a city someplace.
 
2014-05-04 04:06:52 PM  

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

They may be less likely to come out saying "we did it" if the plan is to take the plane they have stashed away, fill it with explosives, and fly it into a city someplace. get shot down shortly after entering another country's airspace.


FTFY
 
2014-05-04 04:22:23 PM  

Kittypie070: Only human garbage seriously believes any conspiracy theory concerning this situation.


Looks like a new one for my "asshole troll" list.   The fact that some people don't believe that you are the sole source of all knowledge doesn't make us "human garbage". Go fark yourself.
 
2014-05-04 04:26:04 PM  

JuggleGeek: Kittypie070: Only human garbage seriously believes any conspiracy theory concerning this situation.

Looks like a new one for my "asshole troll" list.   The fact that some people don't believe that you are the sole source of all knowledge doesn't make us "human garbage". Go fark yourself.


I agree with you. Conspiracy theorists aren't human garbage because they don't think I (or Kitty) am the sole source of all knowledge. Believing in the worst-case scenario with absolutely no evidence when there are plenty of common sense reasons for why it couldn't be the case and believing in debunked nonsense, is what makes conspiracy theorists human garbage.
 
2014-05-04 04:33:31 PM  

grumpfuff: FTFY


I agree that's the likely outcome.  But I did say "the plan".  I'm sure their plan isn't to get shot down on the way.  I also think the chances of getting shot down vary widely depending on the target.  A US target is a lot more difficult than, oh, say, Mogadishu.  In the US, Houston (near the border, and with an international airport) would be more likely to get actually hit than say Washington DC, which will be much better defended.

In a similar vein, I think their chances of successfully stealing a plane would be higher someplace like Malaysia than if they tried it in the US.

I'm certainly not claiming to know what happened.  But it seems unlikely to me that someone would bother to turn off the equipment that helps report the planes location, then fly the plane in a big semi-circle, avoiding land and going far, far away from the original flight plan, if their entire goal was to just crash the plane into the ocean.  It's a lot of extra work, if the end result is still "lets crash the thing".  And with no evidence of a crash, nothing floating up, etc, it looks to me more like a successful hijacking than anything else.
 
2014-05-04 04:34:38 PM  

grumpfuff: I agree with you. Conspiracy theorists aren't human garbage because they don't think I (or Kitty) am the sole source of all knowledge. Believing in the worst-case scenario with absolutely no evidence when there are plenty of common sense reasons for why it couldn't be the case and believing in debunked nonsense, is what makes conspiracy theorists human garbage.


So, like kittieCocksucker, you have no interest in discussing the issue, you just want to call people human garbage.  Got it.
 
2014-05-04 04:39:03 PM  

grumpfuff: JuggleGeek: Kittypie070: Only human garbage seriously believes any conspiracy theory concerning this situation.

Looks like a new one for my "asshole troll" list.   The fact that some people don't believe that you are the sole source of all knowledge doesn't make us "human garbage". Go fark yourself.

I agree with you. Conspiracy theorists aren't human garbage because they don't think I (or Kitty) am the sole source of all knowledge. Believing in the worst-case scenario with absolutely no evidence when there are plenty of common sense reasons for why it couldn't be the case and believing in debunked nonsense, is what makes conspiracy theorists human garbage.


Really?  Well it's an awfully bold and inflammatory statement.  Rude, even (but this is fark, so hey).

Serious question, who defines what is a "conspiracy theory"?  Is it anything other than what Kittypie believes?  She has proclaimed unabashedly and with great confidence that the plane in at the bottom of the ocean.  Though she, or nobody else, knows at the moment.

So, what is it, exactly, that would make someone who is open to - or even "seriously believes" (as does she in her theory) - in a different theory?  And how does exploring other possible options define someone as a "piece of human garbage"?

/she's not going to sleep with you
 
2014-05-04 04:53:12 PM  
It really takes some time to load a nuclear weapon onto a 777. Wait for it....
 
2014-05-04 04:58:32 PM  

Witness99: And how does exploring other possible options define someone as a "piece of human garbage"?


I've been around that conspiracy theory trash for a long time.

I got fed that crap in a damn church.

I poke my nose into a few really asinine places in the Net to get the latest talking points and it's BE TERRIFIED OF EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME FALSE FLAG!! every damn time I shove my damn nose in.

I submit to y'all a serious question:

Who the hell wants to live like that?

Where literally everything they can detect with their basic physical senses is ORDERED to believe that what they see, hear, touch, and feel does not actually exist AS IT IS SEEN, HEARD, TOUCHED, OR FELT but is actually some kind of hideous satanic distortion of the world plotted by a oohh scary shadowy cabal they cannot possibly fight?

They are being ordered what to think, they are being told that their personal experiences and perceptions are total lies, and they are being deliberately SOLD a fake conspiracy reality.

Does anyone here know what happens to a human being that is trained to no longer trust his own sensory perceptions?

Yeah, I can admit I was wrong.

So I shouldn't call the believers "human garbage" after all, but instead properly lay that tag on the money grubbing peddlers of such rot.
 
2014-05-04 05:08:22 PM  
Where literally everything they can detect with their basic physical senses is ORDERED to believe

yeah my grammar's busted, sue me.
 
2014-05-04 05:31:07 PM  

Kittypie070: Witness99: And how does exploring other possible options define someone as a "piece of human garbage"?

I've been around that conspiracy theory trash for a long time.

I got fed that crap in a damn church.

I poke my nose into a few really asinine places in the Net to get the latest talking points and it's BE TERRIFIED OF EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME FALSE FLAG!! every damn time I shove my damn nose in.

I submit to y'all a serious question:

Who the hell wants to live like that?

Where literally everything they can detect with their basic physical senses is ORDERED to believe that what they see, hear, touch, and feel does not actually exist AS IT IS SEEN, HEARD, TOUCHED, OR FELT but is actually some kind of hideous satanic distortion of the world plotted by a oohh scary shadowy cabal they cannot possibly fight?

They are being ordered what to think, they are being told that their personal experiences and perceptions are total lies, and they are being deliberately SOLD a fake conspiracy reality.

Does anyone here know what happens to a human being that is trained to no longer trust his own sensory perceptions?

Yeah, I can admit I was wrong.

So I shouldn't call the believers "human garbage" after all, but instead properly lay that tag on the money grubbing peddlers of such rot.


Thanks for showing us where the alien touched you.
 
2014-05-04 05:46:26 PM  
Triumph 2014-05-04 05:31:07 PM

Thanks for showing us where the alien touched you.

Hah, nice comeback.

Be so kind as to notice (if that's possible) I said exactly shiat-zipola about 'aliens'.
 
2014-05-04 06:56:10 PM  

Wake Up Sheeple: 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!


The black boxes were never located and they never confirmed if they actually heard a ping.
 
2014-05-04 08:59:51 PM  
Someone hacked the planes computer system and flew the plane into the ocean, that's why they don't want you to know about it. No one would fly.
 
2014-05-04 09:41:27 PM  

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


Likely Jemaah Islamiyah or Abu Sayyaf Group since it is Malaysia. Likely the former since the latter is more Philippine based.
 
2014-05-04 11:33:16 PM  

edmo: Time to invade.....*spins the big wheel* .... Iran!


Hey wait a minute, all these options are Iran!
 
2014-05-05 04:17:01 AM  

borg: Wake Up Sheeple: 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!

The black boxes were never located and they never confirmed if they actually heard a ping.



They did confirm the pings.  http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/interviews/2014/april/tr007.aspx

"The Towed Pinger Locator deployed from the Australian Defence Vessel,  Ocean Shield, has detected signals consistent with those emitted by aircraft black boxes.
Two separate signal detections have occurred within the northern part of the defined search area. The first detection was held for approximately 2 hours and 20 minutes. The ship then lost contact before conducting a turn and attempting to re-acquire the signal. The second detection on the return leg was held for approximately 13 minutes. On this occasion, two distinct pinger returns were audible. Significantly, this would be consistent with transmissions from both the Flight Data Recorder and the Cockpit Voice Recorder."

They were careful to emphasize that they couldn't say that the pings were from MH370's black boxes, but the only alternate explanation offered was basically, "who knows, the ocean's weird."
 
2014-05-05 09:39:04 AM  
Anybody ask Al Bundy?
 
2014-05-05 03:11:57 PM  

devilEther: Anybody ask Al Bundy?


Is that Cliven's Arab cousin?
 
Displayed 135 of 135 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report