Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

17833 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 May 2014 at 1:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 135 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report