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 45
    More: Scary, flight MH370, british press  
•       •       •

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



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

2014-05-03 11:52:29 PM
5 votes:
Aren't they usually pretty quick to claim responsibility for things like this?
2014-05-04 01:51:25 AM
3 votes:

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 01:46:19 AM
3 votes:
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!
2014-05-03 11:53:40 PM
3 votes:
Redlight daily fail bullshiat speculation. Green light ny post that cites daily fail

Great jerb
2014-05-04 03:01:48 AM
2 votes:

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 02:32:42 AM
2 votes:

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 02:27:12 AM
2 votes:
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 02:13:25 AM
2 votes:

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 02:09:26 AM
2 votes:
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 02:03:37 AM
2 votes:
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 02:02:11 AM
2 votes:

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 01:42:04 AM
2 votes:
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 01:41:46 AM
2 votes:
What does 'Al Qaeda linked' mean these days?
2014-05-04 01:07:24 AM
2 votes:

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 12:45:37 AM
2 votes:

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 10:28:27 AM
1 votes:
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 07:47:29 AM
1 votes:

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 07:26:14 AM
1 votes:

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 07:03:36 AM
1 votes:

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 05:43:59 AM
1 votes:
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 04:55:37 AM
1 votes:

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 04:14:59 AM
1 votes:

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 03:48:19 AM
1 votes:
*whips out the anti-HURR flamethrower*
2014-05-04 03:36:06 AM
1 votes:

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 03:26:39 AM
1 votes:
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 03:15:53 AM
1 votes:

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


Meh. More like SMERSH or SPECTRE
2014-05-04 03:11:19 AM
1 votes:
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 02:55:45 AM
1 votes:

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 02:55:17 AM
1 votes:
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 02:54:18 AM
1 votes:

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 02:47:12 AM
1 votes:

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 02:33:48 AM
1 votes:
I eat ape-lizard super soldiers for breakfast :)

The obnoxiously yuppie family is for midnight snacks.
2014-05-04 02:26:35 AM
1 votes:

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 02:23:11 AM
1 votes:

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 02:21:32 AM
1 votes:

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 02:17:22 AM
1 votes:

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 02:08:44 AM
1 votes:

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 01:52:48 AM
1 votes:
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 01:47:53 AM
1 votes:
(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 01:46:53 AM
1 votes:

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


It means military contractors are leaning on their Senators for more money.
2014-05-04 01:15:35 AM
1 votes:

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 12:59:14 AM
1 votes:
And they are still playing from the CIA play book circa 1979... "Always blame the highest ranking person who is believable"
2014-05-04 12:57:12 AM
1 votes:

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 12:15:55 AM
1 votes:
At this point, what difference does it make?!
2014-05-03 11:40:17 PM
1 votes:
Time to invade.....*spins the big wheel* .... Iran!
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report