Air France Jet Missing

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

The other problem I see with your bomb scenario causing the lack of communication is that I'm confused as to when the bomb would have gone off.

Bomb would be low on my list. I just brought it up as reported by the various news groups. IF and that would be a big IF it were terrorist related I was looking more at maybe someone entering the cockpit and taking the crew out. My whole point of the terrorist theory was just to bring it up to rule it out since it had not been discussed at that point.

As for any communication attempts I would not have tried HF first. I would have gone for VHF 121.5 since it was already up and there were other flight in the area that were monitoring it, or try a sat contact but that takes longer.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

IF and that would be a big IF it were terrorist related I was looking more at maybe someone entering the cockpit and taking the crew out.

I see that as even lower possibility than a bomb - with the reinforced doors, they DEFINITELY would have had time to transmit.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[LongWayToFall 0]

More updates, looks like they are fairly sure it broke up before it made it to the surface.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090603/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_plane

[billvon 2,394]

>that many people saw a missile leave the surface of the water (from a
>submarine)

Hmm. William S. Donaldson (Navy crash investigator) decided it was a shoulder-launched missile. In addition, people saw "missiles" that day flying over Long Island, ascending vertically from the surface of the water and moving horizontally near the coast.

I have little doubt that many people did indeed see a nearly vertical fireball after the aircraft exploded. Once the front of the aircraft sheared off, the aircraft's center of gravity moved very far towards the rear while simultaneously reducing its weight by about 25%. At this point the engines were still at climb power, and due to the mechanical nature of the throttles on the 747, likely stayed that way until they ran out of fuel as structural failure took out their feed lines. That would have resulted in an astronomical rate of climb until the remains of the aircraft bled off enough speed to stall and/or drop its nose due to normal dynamic pitch stability kicking in (although whether that ever would have happened on a seriously damaged burning aircraft is open to debate.)

>and missile propellant was recovered from the seat fabric.

That report came from James Sanders, a retired police officer. He was arrested for stealing items from the NTSB hangar where the debris was being stored. He claimed that he found a "reddish residue" that must have been missile propellant. Both the NTSB and the FBI tested the residue and found it to be seat adhesive.

Sanders was later convicted of stealing items from a crash investigation.

Also don't forget Elaine Scarry. She is convinced that the aircraft was brought down by a secret US government weapon that shot "High Intensity Radiated Fields" at Flight 800. Then there's Peter Lance who thinks it was a terrorist bomb. The NTSB looked into all of them, and at the end, fuel tank ignition was the most likely.

[quade 3]

Quote

More updates, looks like they are fairly sure it broke up before it made it to the surface.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090603/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_plane

From that article;

Quote

One fear — terrorism — was dismissed Wednesday by all three countries involved in the search and recovery effort. France's defense minister and the Pentagon said there were no signs that terrorism was involved, and Jobim said "that possibility hasn't even been considered."

So, again, while fear of terrorism in this case makes for excellent TV on FoxNews, not much in reality to support it.

Which as of this very moment of posting, they continue to do.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/index.html

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

I see that as even lower possibility than a bomb - with the reinforced doors, they DEFINITELY would have had time to transmit.

Who said anything about trying to gain access while the door is closed? That would be the last thing I would try. The good news is, clearly you are not a terrorist.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[LongWayToFall 0]

Yes I still agree that after the missile hit the plane, it (minus the nose) would begin climbing until a stall. There are something like 150 witnesses that all agree that a missile launched from the surface, and traveled up and impacted the plane, which then caused a fireball.

I thought that it was more of a fact than rumor that it was indeed missile fuel, it has been awhile since I read into it. There is no arguing that the area the plane was in was undergoing military testing.

As I said, I am not much for conspiracy theory, but I read up on this some time ago and the data seemed quite convincing. Would you really put it beyond our government to cover it up?

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

More updates, looks like they are fairly sure it broke up before it made it to the surface.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090603/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_plane

From that article;

Quote

One fear — terrorism — was dismissed Wednesday by all three countries involved in the search and recovery effort. France's defense minister and the Pentagon said there were no signs that terrorism was involved, and Jobim said "that possibility hasn't even been considered."

So, again, while fear of terrorism in this case makes for excellent TV on FoxNews, not much in reality to support it.

Which as of this very moment of posting, they continue to do.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/index.html

As of this very moment:

" Air France had received a bomb threat May 27 for a flight from Buenos Aires, Argentina, to Paris, sources in the Argentine military and police told CNN on Wednesday.

According to the officials, who had been briefed on the incident and declined to be identified because of the ongoing investigation, the Air France office in Buenos Aires received the threat from a man speaking Spanish.

Authorities checked the Boeing 777 and did not find anything. Security was tightened during check-in for Flight 415, which left on time and without incident, the officials said."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/03/france.plane.memorial/index.html

GIYF

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

One fear — terrorism — was dismissed Wednesday by all three countries involved in the search and recovery effort. France's defense minister and the Pentagon said there were no signs that terrorism was involved, and Jobim said "that possibility hasn't even been considered."

So, again, while fear of terrorism in this case makes for excellent TV on FoxNews, not much in reality to support it.

Which as of this very moment of posting, they continue to do.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/index.html

Want to try again Paul? Maybe you should read CNN if you don't like Fox News. From the NTSB "Foul play has not been ruled out." It would be negligent for any responsible investigation not to consider terrorism and not rule it out. Now, want to guess how many alphabet agencies are or have looked at this?

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[quade 3]

I'm not saying CNN is perfect, never have, but you're the one that introduced FoxNews into this.

As for who is investigating . . . the NTSB isn't in charge of this, nor should they be. Wrong country. They've been invited to help, but they're clearly not in charge.

Who's in charge.

BEA's Web site.

Care to link me any official statements the NTSB have made about the possibility of terrorism?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

I'm not saying CNN is perfect, never have, but you're the one that introduced FoxNews into this.

So, what is your point? What does it matter who is reporting it if it is accurate?

Quote

As for who is investigating . . . the NTSB isn't in charge of this, nor should they be. Wrong country. They've been invited to help, but they're clearly not in charge.

Yes they are assisting and not in charge, does that make them less competent? I don't think so.

Quote

Care to link me any official statements the NTSB have made about the possibility of terrorism?

Nope, already gave you the reference to the news article with the quote. If you want to take it past that have at it. If you are still in denial that it is being looked into by various agencies and countries then I can't help you. Again, to not consider it and rule it out given that they don't know what happened would be negligence.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[cocheese 0]

Can you take this thread to Speaker's Corner? or would PMs be better?

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

There are something like 150 witnesses that all agree that a missile launched from the surface, and traveled up and impacted the plane, which then caused a fireball.

Did they really? And, more importantly, did they do so independantly and without prior knowledge of the testimony/ hypothesis of others? Eyewitness testimony, especially in unusual, highly dramatic situations like this is very unreliable and vulnerable to influence.

Quote

I thought that it was more of a fact than rumor that it was indeed missile fuel, it has been awhile since I read into it.

I'm sure that the conspiracy theorists you read did present it as fact. It's what they do.

Quote

As I said, I am not much for conspiracy theory, but I read up on this some time ago and the data seemed quite convincing.

Really? The author of the page you linked to cited the cover-up attempts of 'internet intelligence operatives' as the reason he thinks the plane was downed by a military missile. What's an 'internet intelligence operative'? How does he know who they are? Is he, maybe, a paranoid loon?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mrwrong 0]

Hi and welcome to the DZ.com on-line NTSB investigation board.
Enter the flight number of the downed aircraft and our expert panel will have a definite answer in about 24 hrs to why this flight went in.

Let the flaming begin (for me having the nerve to post this)

“The sum of intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing.” - George Bernard Shaw
He who dies with the most toys, wins.....
dudeist skydiver # 19515
Buy quality and cry once!

[cocheese 0]

The investigation has been completed and we found that David Copperfield is guilty of practicing magic in international airspace.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/69243/David-Copperfield-Magic-Revealed

[mrwrong 0]

Quote

The investigation has been completed and we found that David Copperfield is guilty of practicing magic in international airspace.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/69243/David-Copperfield-Magic-Revealed

Thank you... Now I can finally find some peace of mind!!!

“The sum of intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing.” - George Bernard Shaw
He who dies with the most toys, wins.....
dudeist skydiver # 19515
Buy quality and cry once!

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

I figured if it was down they'd get the ELP signal. Such was not reported.

ELT goes off on impact. If it impacts the water, it may be submerged. If submerged it's not going to be able to successfully transmit it's location.

The Flight Data Recorder does have a "pinger" on it. They'd have to send submersibles down to listen for and try to recover it. If it's deep enough water, that's going to be a tough assignment even for robots.

This is probably a very naive question but has anyone ever thought of strapping water wings on these FDR's or other telemetry devices? Is that beyond 21st C. technological capabilities or is it a question of cost vs benefit or space limitations?

[metalslug 31]

Quote

2) Debris field is spread out in two major chunks 35 miles apart. Not really sure what that says other than the plane probably came apart at a significant altitude rather than on impact.

I agree with this logic, but then I read from CNN...

Quote

...Brazil's defense minister said a 20-kilometer (12-mile) oil slick near where the plane, en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, went down indicated it probably did not break up until it hit the water.

I would expect that it's quite possible for fuel tanks, even if detached from other parts of the fuselage at high altitude, to remain largely intact until impact with the ocean surface before rupturing or leaking. Apparently this minister does not agree.

Given the fuel slick in one location vs. the wide debris fields 35 miles apart, which is more likely?

[quade 3]

Quote

This is probably a very naive question but has anyone ever thought of strapping water wings on these FDR's or other telemetry devices?

You wouldn't want to do that to the current system because in a lot of cases it would just get trapped in the wreckage.

There is a system that is used by some military jets that is an auxiliary recorder to the main "black boxes." The auxiliary unit ejects out the tail when the aircraft systems determines impact is imminent. The unit floats. Airlines have been reluctant to install such a system due to costs. This accident may change that. We'll see.

More info here;
http://www.ntsb.gov/events//symp_rec/proceedings/authors/austin.htm

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,394]

>There are something like 150 witnesses that all agree that a missile launched from
>the surface, and traveled up and impacted the plane, which then caused a fireball.

I'll let you fight it out with all the people who claim without a doubt that a missile was NOT launched from the surface of the water, but was rather a Stinger missile launched by someone on land.

And there's still the issue that every single piece of wreckage shows OUTWARD pressure destroyed the aircraft; there was no entrance hole where a missile (or large missile fragments) could have entered.

[LongWayToFall 0]

What they cited was that rumors were spread immediately by supposed government agents, that the plane was taken down by a terrorist missile. This would aid in the cover up of the fact that it was a US missile, and right after the accident they did not know if they could put the blame on something else (maybe someone has Hi-res video of the missile striking the plane, and they wouldn't be able to deny it).

I'll not continue the twa800 topic any longer, maybe I'll start up a new thread. In conclusion though, it wasn't a stinger, and it wasn't laser beams or aliens. Many witnesses are positive they saw a missile. Some people (the ones doing the tests?) are sure that there was rocket fuel on the seats. The area was being used at that exact time for military testing. I still think it is a very plausible explanation.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

This is probably a very naive question but has anyone ever thought of strapping water wings on these FDR's or other telemetry devices?

You wouldn't want to do that to the current system because in a lot of cases it would just get trapped in the wreckage.

There is a system that is used by some military jets that is an auxiliary recorder to the main "black boxes." The auxiliary unit ejects out the tail when the aircraft systems determines impact is imminent. The unit floats. Airlines have been reluctant to install such a system due to costs. This accident may change that. We'll see.

More info here;
http://www.ntsb.gov/events//symp_rec/proceedings/authors/austin.htm

Interesting article. Thanks. I especially like "Figure 4". The use of the conceptual block diagram to illustrate the operation of the system while the aircraft is in an unusual attitude was a brilliant touch.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Bomb would be low on my list.

So what are you saying? You keep saying something smells because no comm's with it when it was going down. It happens. I know you keep claiming that it doesnt but it does.


http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19931&key=1


That is just one of the maaaaaaaany NTSB reports that I have gone over where no mayday, holy shit, we are fucked, nothing was transmitted before they augered in like Wile E.

Quote

As for any communication attempts I would not have tried HF first.

So the plane is coming apart and you have the rest of your life to try to get it stable and you think the first thing of the crews mind would be to TRY to tell someone where the crash scene is gonna be. RIIIIIGHT!

Quote

I would have gone for VHF 121.5 since it was already up

How do you know it was up? More speculation. What if the breakup took out the comm's?

Quote

or try a sat contact but that takes longer.

Sure why not!My plane is coming apart and the first thing I'm gonna do is reach for the FMC and start typing a SATCOM message.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

And there's still the issue that every single piece of wreckage shows OUTWARD pressure destroyed the aircraft; there was no entrance hole where a missile (or large missile fragments) could have entered.

Damn you Bill for coming with facts!

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[metalslug 31]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Debris field is spread out in two major chunks 35 miles apart. Not really sure what that says other than the plane probably came apart at a significant altitude rather than on impact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with this logic, but then I read from CNN...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Brazil's defense minister said a 20-kilometer (12-mile) oil slick near where the plane, en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, went down indicated it probably did not break up until it hit the water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would expect that it's quite possible for fuel tanks, even if detached from other parts of the fuselage at high altitude, to remain largely intact until impact with the ocean surface before rupturing or leaking. Apparently this minister does not agree.

Given the fuel slick in one location vs. the wide debris fields 35 miles apart, which is more likely?

Sweet cheezus! I'm now reading that neither the debris nor the oil slick was from the aircraft. At least we will all get to write a new thesis on the cause.