Our spy satellites were used to help find the wreckage.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
France has a deep sea survey vessel on the way too.
Chances of survivors are zero to none.
Chances of survivors are zero to none.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Please re-read that Ted.FatherTed wrote:
France has a deep sea survey vessel on the way too.
Chances of survivors are zero to none.
You are at university. Shit like that doesn't fly.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
zero to none is a phrase you bogan
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Indeed. It means none. Slim to none is the more frequently used one me thinks.FatherTed wrote:
zero to none is a phrase you bogan
Xbone Stormsurgezz
see, kmar agrees and i bet he reads books an everythin.
OT, they're gonna have a hard job finding stuff, even with the two french subs. Went down in the middle of the ITCZ, so expect heavy winds, and strong ocean currents.
OT, they're gonna have a hard job finding stuff, even with the two french subs. Went down in the middle of the ITCZ, so expect heavy winds, and strong ocean currents.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Remember Flight 587
It was the Airbus 300 that had the tail fall off, and then the engines fell off after it hit some turbulence caused by another aircraft.
from wiki after hitting turbulence cause by a 747 "The first officer attempted to keep the plane upright with aggressive rudder inputs. The strength of the air flowing against the moving rudder stressed the aircraft's vertical stabilizer and eventually snapped it off entirely, causing the aircraft to lose control and crash." Kind of sounds similar to the Air France flight. But we'll never know.
You start making planes out of composites and who knows what will happen when they crack.
It was the Airbus 300 that had the tail fall off, and then the engines fell off after it hit some turbulence caused by another aircraft.
from wiki after hitting turbulence cause by a 747 "The first officer attempted to keep the plane upright with aggressive rudder inputs. The strength of the air flowing against the moving rudder stressed the aircraft's vertical stabilizer and eventually snapped it off entirely, causing the aircraft to lose control and crash." Kind of sounds similar to the Air France flight. But we'll never know.
You start making planes out of composites and who knows what will happen when they crack.
Nah, this isn't like JAL 123, its more like TWA800, it blew up so fast they didn't even have the time to say OHSHI-Stubbee wrote:
I was thinking of the JAL flight that lost its tail cone and most of the vertical stabilizer when its aft bulkhead burst due to improper maintenance. It usually isn't just one thing that goes wrong. It is always a chain of events.TPM-J45P3R- wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe9PVaFGl3oStubbee wrote:
I am thinking turbulence snapped a wing. That would cause the error message received as well as cause the cabin pressure to drop.
I KNOW ITS A 777...
They would have had to go through some extreme weather for that to happenCould have been something like Swissair Flight 111 thats my guess.A YouTube Comment wrote:
No, not tons -- a 777 weighs more than that *empty*. If you look at the video at 1:22, the readout on the left is the percentage of design limit (127%). The right is probably the tonnage (2256).
If we divide that moment by the 777-300's max take-off weight of 387.5 short (US) tons, that's simulating about 5.8gs of force -- putting the design limit at around 4.6gs, and expected approximate breaking point at 6.8gs, and the actual breaking point at about 7.2gs.
The company received an 'electrical fault' signal as well as a 'loss of cabin pressure' alarm. And the plane was flying over/through a region of intense cumulonimbus activity. There was no mayday.
Its neither like SR111, they declared emergency.
Superfluous use of words is still superfluous use of words, even if it is part of a colloquialism.FatherTed wrote:
zero to none is a phrase you bogan
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
I flew Lufthansa last summer.Ioan92 wrote:
Are you sure?
That's Lufthansa, its not even first class.
That is the best company I've ever been with. Great food, good comfort even in the last class, man I love em!
FYI: Singapore airlines is the best I have ever flown... evar. Used to live there.
-kon
-kon
Okay that however I must agree with.konfusion wrote:
FYI: Singapore airlines is the best I have ever flown... evar. Used to live there.
-kon
I've been with KLM, British Airways, Swiss Air (back in the day), AA and Lufthansa
But I've seen and read a lot about Singapore and heard it's totally awesome.
I'm guessing it's like 3 trillion dollars for a flight from Geneva to L.A. though... :'(
I like how nobody is talking about terrorism. Even though there was a bomb threat for an Air France flight before. Keep burying your heads in the sand talking about lighting.
if it was terrorism surely someone would have claimed it by now?
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
The goal of terrorism is publicity.usmarine wrote:
I like how nobody is talking about terrorism. Even though there was a bomb threat for an Air France flight before. Keep burying your heads in the sand talking about lighting.
Given I haven't seen anything at all mentioning terrorism yet, I'll wait a while and keep on assuming it was a fault in the aircraft.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
I really don't belive in the lightning. I somehow am almost 100% sure the plane blew up in the air what ever the reason maybe though.usmarine wrote:
I like how nobody is talking about terrorism. Even though there was a bomb threat for an Air France flight before. Keep burying your heads in the sand talking about lighting.
First thing I thought was a failed terrorist act, i.e. bomb blew up before a hijack.
Edit: on second thought maybe not a terrorist act but a normal hijacking.
Unless it wasn't meant to be blow up or it blew up too soon.FatherTed wrote:
if it was terrorism surely someone would have claimed it by now?
Last edited by Gawwad (2009-06-03 05:22:39)
That's the goal eh? We shall see.Flecco wrote:
The goal of terrorism is publicity.usmarine wrote:
I like how nobody is talking about terrorism. Even though there was a bomb threat for an Air France flight before. Keep burying your heads in the sand talking about lighting.
Given I haven't seen anything at all mentioning terrorism yet, I'll wait a while and keep on assuming it was a fault in the aircraft.
Thank you for defining terrorism for me though.
still, i doubt whichever terror group may have done this would give a damn at what point it sploded, the deaths are the deaths.Gawwad wrote:
I really don't belive in the lightning. I somehow am almost 100% sure the plane blew up in the air what ever the reason maybe though.usmarine wrote:
I like how nobody is talking about terrorism. Even though there was a bomb threat for an Air France flight before. Keep burying your heads in the sand talking about lighting.
First thing I thought was a failed terrorist act, i.e. bomb blew up before a hijack.Unless it wasn't meant to be blow up or it blew up too soon.FatherTed wrote:
if it was terrorism surely someone would have claimed it by now?
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
I'm too slow at editingFatherTed wrote:
still, i doubt whichever terror group may have done this would give a damn at what point it sploded, the deaths are the deaths.Gawwad wrote:
I really don't belive in the lightning. I somehow am almost 100% sure the plane blew up in the air what ever the reason maybe though.usmarine wrote:
I like how nobody is talking about terrorism. Even though there was a bomb threat for an Air France flight before. Keep burying your heads in the sand talking about lighting.
First thing I thought was a failed terrorist act, i.e. bomb blew up before a hijack.Unless it wasn't meant to be blow up or it blew up too soon.FatherTed wrote:
if it was terrorism surely someone would have claimed it by now?
"on second thought maybe not a terrorist act but a normal hijacking."
edit: failed one at that
Last edited by Gawwad (2009-06-03 05:24:08)
You can't terrorise people if nobody knows you've done anything. Publicity = people becoming aware of your cause.usmarine wrote:
That's the goal eh? We shall see.Flecco wrote:
The goal of terrorism is publicity.usmarine wrote:
I like how nobody is talking about terrorism. Even though there was a bomb threat for an Air France flight before. Keep burying your heads in the sand talking about lighting.
Given I haven't seen anything at all mentioning terrorism yet, I'll wait a while and keep on assuming it was a fault in the aircraft.
Thank you for defining terrorism for me though.
Most of the USA would know fuck all about Islamic extremist terrorism if it weren't for the 9/11 attacks.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
wow that was the stupidest thing I have ever heard.Flecco wrote:
Most of the USA would know fuck all about Islamic extremist terrorism if it weren't for the 9/11 attacks.
Hmm?usmarine wrote:
wow that was the stupidest thing I have ever heard.Flecco wrote:
Most of the USA would know fuck all about Islamic extremist terrorism if it weren't for the 9/11 attacks.
So the general US population has an in-depth knowledge of Islamic extremism and the militant action it fosters along with the USA's history in the Middle East? The way I saw things (admittedly in hindsight and externally...), embassy bombing/USS Cole were water off a duck's back compared to 9/11. Yes, the scale and the significance of the target changed but they got the word out. The USA's potential voting population is paying more attention to the Middle East now. Which was as far as i can see, one of the motivations for AQ's attack.
Terrorism is politically motivated. If a person sets off a bomb on a plane with no political motivation then its not terrorism. Its a nutter being a nutter. There has to be a political agenda for terrorism. Generally the more publicity an attack gets, the better it is as a result for the terrorists, especially if they get upgraded from minor annoyance to real threat.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Well the most plausibles causes to this are either that the plane went TWA800, see here:
Or that the plane got clubbed by an accidental missile strike. I don't know what other other causes could be, we will have to wait the Experts tell us.
Or that the plane got clubbed by an accidental missile strike. I don't know what other other causes could be, we will have to wait the Experts tell us.
So nobody finds it odd a bomb threat was phoned in for this route on May 27th? May be nothing but its one hell of a coincidence.
Last edited by usmarine (2009-06-03 05:57:56)
It does remind me of Ramzi Youssef.usmarine wrote:
So nobody finds it odd a bomb threat was phoned in for this route on May 27th? Maybe be nothing but its one hell of a coincidence.